How to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the owner who drove and injured the thief?

Whether the owner drove three kilometers and crashed into the thief caused "suspected intentional injury" has sparked heated discussions. The reason was that a person named Sun in Nantong, Jiangsu Province found that the wallet in the car had been stolen, and saw that the thief Bian was about to escape on an electric car not far away. Sun chased him for three or four kilometers, and finally knocked him down directly.

After diagnosis, Bian's left leg was fractured. Now, Bian is undergoing ** in the hospital, and Sun has been released on bail pending trial on suspicion of intentional injury.

chasing the thief after the money was stolen", this is a normal move, but in this case, the circumstance of Sun, as the owner, driving and injuring the thief, has added difficulty to the determination of the nature of the matter: the local ** treatment retains flexible space, believing that he is "suspected of intentional injury", but he is released on bail pending trial. And Sun's self-reported that "his family is in difficulty, and the stolen money is his rent for next month" adds to the topicality of this matter.

In this case, after discovering that one's property had been stolen, chasing the suspected thief on the spot met the prerequisites for legitimate defense as stipulated in the Criminal Law. The question now is, is the nature of the act of knocking the thief down in such a way as to cause significant damage in a manifest excess of what is necessary? In my opinion, we cannot only examine Sun's behavior at the moment when he knocked down the thief Bian, but also look at the entire chasing process.

Under the circumstance that Sun had the prerequisites for legitimate defense, the damage and danger caused by the collision were much greater when comparing the infringement of property in the car with the impact on Bian's person. In this sense, Sun's conduct "exceeded the necessary limit" and was excessive defense. However, to determine whether the "limit has been exceeded", it is necessary to see whether significant damage has been caused.

Bian's injury is naturally also a factor to consider.

Obviously, the same should be true for the case of "chasing thieves", and it is necessary to avoid the "difficult for the strong" type of demand, and also to avoid the situation of "only talking about motives and not looking at limits". It is necessary to ensure that the handling of each case can stand the test of the rule of law.

Collect evidence of how things happened, as long as there is a reason, you must tell it, and use your own power to protect your own interests.

The owner of the thief is also protecting his legitimate rights and interests, after all, the essence of his doing this is to recover the property. To protect one's own legitimate rights and interests, one must also see clearly one's own strength.

It is recommended to call the police directly, because it is not legitimate defense to drive into the thief, and you may have to pay compensation for the money, so pay more attention to this problem. Only by reporting to the police and retaining evidence can your legitimate rights and interests be protected.

If one's property is stolen by a thief, and in the process of chasing, the thief never gives up the stolen property, and the thief is hit by a car and is injured, the owner belongs to the illegal infringement in progress, stops the illegal infringement in accordance with the law, protects his own legitimate interests, and is not responsible. If the thief has discarded the stolen property during the chase, the illegal infringement will stop, and if the owner is still chasing the thief and causing him to have a car accident, he will bear the corresponding responsibility.

Chasing a thief and injuring others, what responsibility does the owner bear?

Dear, hello, I am happy to answer for you, according to your question, the result of your analysis from a legal point of view is as follows: chasing a thief and injuring others, the owner bears all the liability for the injury to others. Chasing thieves is to protect their own legitimate rights and interests, but they cannot damage the interests of others, so they are at fault and have the responsibility to compensate others for their losses.

Legal analysis: If the victim improperly takes measures and causes damage to others, he shall bear tort liability. If one's property is stolen by a thief, and in the process of chasing, the thief never gives up the stolen property, and the thief is hit by a car and is injured, the owner belongs to the illegal infringement in progress, stops the illegal infringement in accordance with the law, protects his own legitimate interests, and is not responsible.

If the thief has discarded the stolen property during the chase, the illegal infringement will stop, and if the owner is still chasing the thief and causing him to have a car accident, he will bear the corresponding responsibility.

Legal basis: Article 181 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China does not bear civil liability if damage is caused by legitimate defense. Where legitimate defense exceeds the necessary limits and causes undue harm, the defender shall bear appropriate civil liability.

In the process of catching the thief, Wen Yansen, a Jieyang man who hit and injured the thief, was prosecuted by the public prosecution for intentional injury, although he admitted that he "acted bravely", but was finally found guilty of injury by the Huizhou Intermediate Court.

was charged with intentional injury for catching a thief", this is the word that the media and the public have paid attention to in the case of Wen Yansen. After the case, Wen Yansen repeatedly emphasized that he was "acting bravely in the face of righteousness", but the judicial authorities did not think so.

Wen Yansen, 34 years old this year, is a native of Jieyang. The origin of the case is that at about 11 a.m. on July 7, 2014, Zhong Guoxin drove Zhang Yinli on a motorcycle to the decoration stall where Wen Yansen was, stole a mobile phone from employee Miss Yang and fled. After Wen Yansen found out, he drove a car to track him, and Zhong Guoxin accelerated to escape after discovering it.

When chasing to the north section of the Jincheng Garden shop on Huishadi 2nd Road, Wen Yansen accelerated and collided with the motorcycle, causing Zhong Guoxin and Zhang Yinli to fall. Zhang Yinli fell to the ground, Zhong Guoxin got up and fled, Wen Yansen pressed him down and called the police.

After being admitted to the hospital, the victim Zhang Yinli was diagnosed with a pulmonary contusion, a fracture of the transverse process of the lumbar vertebrae, and multiple soft tissue contusions and lacerations all over her body. On July 8, Zhang Yinli's family applied to bring her back to her hometown of Meizhou**. On the way, Zhang Yinli's condition deteriorated and she was sent to a local hospital for emergency treatment and died.

On May 13 this year, the Huicheng District Court convicted Wen Yansen of intentional injury in the first instance and sentenced him to eight months in prison and compensation (more than 930,000 yuan in compensation from the deceased's family).

Wen Yansen pleaded not guilty, saying that he was justified in self-defense, defending that "citizens have an obligation to catch thieves, and when catching thieves, there are no illegal crimes, including speeding to catch thieves." The reason for his defense is that his conduct complied with the provisions of the law on citizens' right to renunciation, and that the two suspects should bear the legal consequences of causing minor injuries if they refused to be deprived.

Wen Yansen was not satisfied with this result and appealed to the Huizhou Intermediate Court, asking for a change in the verdict. Yesterday, according to the second-instance results reported by the Huizhou Intermediate People's Court, the first-instance verdict was upheld and Wen Yansen's appeal was rejected. The judgment takes effect.

After the trial, the judge of the first instance said that the citizens' active assistance in solving the case is commendable, but the legal rights of the criminal suspect should also be respected; When the value judgment of the right to life and health of a criminal suspect and the property right of a citizen is required, it is obvious that we cannot find any legitimate reason to support the indiscriminate use of violence by citizens and the unwarranted deprivation of the right to life and health of a criminal suspect.

In response to the argument that the act was justified defense, the judge said that according to the criminal law, justifiable defense requires that the illegal infringement is ongoing, and in this case, the victim Zhang Yinli had fled after committing the act of stealing another person's mobile phone, the stolen property had completely escaped the control of the owner, and the theft was completely over.

The owner should not run a red light and then hit and injure the thief, although the thief's approach is wrong, but still can't hurt others, and the thief's life is also protected.

The main fault of the owner is to deliberately hit someone, which is a deliberate injury that must be punished by law. He should have called the police in time.

The fault of the owner is that he took inappropriate measures and means to catch the thief, causing personal injury to the thief.

If the owner hits and injures the thief, the owner is more impulsive. This hurts the thief and causes the thief to have some physical injuries, which is not a good thing for the thief.

Stopping an act of unlawful infringement and causing damage to the unlawful infringer is a legitimate defense! This is self-defense, the owner got out of the car to wash something, the wallet in the car was lost, chased three kilometers of thieves did not stop, this is desperate to escape, if the wallet is thrown to the ground, or simply return to the owner of this thing will be avoided?

Who is to blame? Blame the thief, stealing things first, if you don't owe your hands and don't steal things, will people hit you? I also ran three kilometers, give you time to think about it, who told you to die without repentance?

People have a family to support, and a paralyzed mother, this money is next month's rent, I can understand why the owner is chasing after him, because it is life-saving money, this is the living expenses of the family, the family can't live without this money, I think this is an intentional injury, I can't accept it!

The owner said, "If he doesn't steal, I won't chase him"! What should I do if a thief steals something from me next time?

Do I chase or not, just drive the car and run, stop and don't talk, you have to hold on, then he is going to escape, who can make up for this loss? So I think it's not wrong to bump it, at least let the thief stop, and the money is recovered!

Just like the owner said, if he doesn't steal money, I won't chase him, chase him, right, as the owner is just to protect his property from loss, if he encounters a robbery, I resist, he is injured, I have to accept the punishment of the law, where do you say fairness?

Thieves must be severely punished, support legitimate defense, justice needs to be guarded by us! He's a thief, and if he is caught, he will go to jail, so isn't there a medical staff in the cell? Let's give him a free **, everyone should pay attention to this kind of thing in the future, hit it lightly, hit it lightly, and then shout at the thief, if you don't stop, I'm going to hit you hard, why do you have to scare and scare no, in case you are afraid of returning the money, we also have to worry about it.

There is a child in the kindergarten who is always bullied, and is beaten twice by the children at every turn, scratched twice, the girls don't play with her, the boys also dislike her, the parents looked for the kindergarten several times, the effect is not very good, and then the parents thought of a way, take the child a variety of outdoor activities, contact with strange children, plus learn taekwondo, no one bullied her again, first of all, she has the ability to make friends, and secondly, she has the ability to protect herself, if the parents don't care, what is the future of this child? Will it become another Yi Yao?

This is the same as the "lost owner", if you don't resist yourself, you will become a victim!

Summary:I think there are still people outside the law, always take into account a first-come, first-served no, bail pending trial has no meaning, what you want is legitimate defense, the owner regrets it very much, if you want to know that this is the result, don't chase the thief, next time don't chase again, the thief is happy, I steal things I have a reason, you have to pay me money to see a doctor, the fault party became the plaintiff, but the result of the second instance is still good, the owner belongs to legitimate defense!

The loss of the owner is compensated by the thief and the law is upheld, but the car should not hit the person.

In terms of morality, in fact, it can only be regarded as the owner's excessive behavior in protecting his property, and the loss should be compensated by the thief, after all, it is the thief who provokes the incident first. If it is legally speaking, both parties are responsible, and it is necessary to compensate each other.

There is no one to compensate for the loss of the owner, because he is suspected of intentional injury, so it seems that the owner does not have to bear the responsibility for the crime of intentional injury at most, and the loss will have to be borne by himself.

If your property is stolen, you should call the police as soon as possible. After all, it is difficult to find the thief on your own, and you still need the help of the police.

Recently, Sun from Nantong, Jiangsu Province, found that his wallet in the car was missing, and the alarm bell sounded in his heart. Looking around, he found that a "passer-by" was about to ride a battery bike, and just called out to him to ask, but this person slipped away with one foot on the accelerator.

Sun Mou knew it in his heart, this must be a thief! Without doing anything, Sun immediately drove to catch up, driving three or four kilometers, and it is estimated that he was in a hurryknocked the thief to the ground.

Later, the police arrived, and after routine questioning, the suspect Bian admitted that he stole Sun's wallet. For the sake of temporary money, not only send yourself to the bureau, alsoThe blow resulted in a fracture of the left legI don't know if Bian will learn a lesson.

Sun also regretted that he didn't control himself properly due to impulsiveness and injured the thief. I didn't have any malice, but I also ran into the lawAt present, Sun is suspected of intentional injury and has been released on bail pending trial in accordance with the law. Sun later said that his income was not high, and the money that was stolen was next month's rent.

It's a mixed bag. The joy is that the thief is arrested and brought to justice, and the stolen money is also returned to the original owner. Sadly, Sun may have to be punished for excessive defense, because he was driving a car at the time, and the thief did not pose a safety threat to him, but he still took the initiative to "attack" the thief and caused injury.

Therefore, we should not be in a hurry in dealing with such incidents, because ordinary people do not have the "ability to enforce the law". You can chase and counterattack, but you can't take the initiative to attack, otherwise the roles of the injured party and the perpetrator will be reversed instantly. Sun was also anxious at that time and didn't think too much about it.

But does it also reflect the decline in people's trust in the police? If you trust the police, you are unlikely to go into battle in person. It is estimated that the police will not deal with this kind of thing, and they are not letting the thief go, so it is better to take the initiative than to sit and wait for death.

And the definition of "over-defense" is vague. It may seem like a small amount of money was stolen, but it may be life-saving money for the person who reported the crime. What the thief steals is not only a few pieces of paper, but also a hope, a sustenance, in this case, what is "excessive", who is qualified to define it.