What is the responsibility of the patrol officers and the company who are beaten by thieves?

First of all, if an employee is injured during work, the company should actively participate in the treatment and pay the cost in advance.

Originally, the company's business is risky, it is normal for such a thing to happen, if the employee is stabbed to death by a thief this time, then the responsibility of your company will be greater, because first of all, your insurance is not sound and perfect, and it is normal for such a thing to occur. It is a management negligence.

It is imperative to pay the normal insurance and accident insurance for all employees as soon as possible, so as to avoid the risks that the company has to bear in the event of similar problems and minimize them.

Second, before the suspect is caught, the company should bear all the medical expenses. Wages cannot be stopped, of course, after understanding what happened, to see if the parties have made mistakes in their work, resulting in the consequences caused by the mistakes, if so, they should also explain it clearly to the other party's family, and sue the other party for compensation after the criminal suspect is caught. At the same time, when the company pays all the medical expenses in advance, it must take back the insurance purchased for it, and a special person is responsible for handling the claim, and the money belongs to the company.

If the front tooth is lost, it can be crippled. So don't underestimate it.

Close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

This is a work-related injury, and the company shall be responsible for the corresponding work-related injury compensation, and compensate in accordance with the relevant national and local work-related injury standards.

Commercial insurance can make claims, but beyond the commercial insurance part, the company still needs to compensate.

The incident is not personal, you are not in the infringement, and you are not responsible for compensation.

In accordance with the provisions of the Regulations on the Administration of Security Services:

Article 29 In the security service, in order to perform the duties of the security service, the security guard may take the following measures:

1) Check the documents of the personnel entering and exiting the service area, and register the vehicles and articles entering and exiting;

2) Patrolling, guarding, safety inspection, and alarm monitoring in the service area;

3) Conduct security checks on personnel and their belongings in public places such as airports, stations, and docks, to maintain public order;

4) Temporary quarantine areas may be established as needed for armed escort missions, but obstruction to citizens' normal activities shall be minimized as much as possible.

Security guards shall promptly stop illegal and criminal acts that occur in the service area, and shall immediately report to the police if the illegal and criminal acts are ineffective, and at the same time take measures to protect the scene.

The use of firearms by security guards engaged in armed escort services in the performance of armed escort duties is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on the Administration of the Use of Firearms by Full-time Guardian Escort Personnel".

Article 31 Security guards have the right to refuse to carry out the illegal instructions of security practitioners or customer units.

What security guards are not allowed to do.

Article 30 Security guards shall not engage in the following acts:

1) Restricting the physical liberty of others, searching others' bodies, or insulting or assaulting others;

2) Seizure or confiscation of others' documents and property;

3) Obstructing the lawful performance of official duties;

4) Participating in the recovery of debts, using violence or the threat of violence to resolve disputes;

5) Deleting, altering, or disseminating surveillance video data or alarm records formed in the course of security services;

6) Infringing on personal privacy or divulging state secrets, commercial secrets, or information that the client unit explicitly requires to be kept confidential in the course of security services;

7) Other conduct that violates laws and administrative regulations.

2. As long as the management personnel of the property management company have fulfilled the normal safety precaution obligations and there is no dereliction of duty, and the property of the owner's home is stolen, the property management company cannot be required to bear the liability for compensation. If there is evidence that the property management company has obvious negligence, and there is a certain causal relationship between this negligence and the theft of the owner's home, such as whether the security personnel are off duty, whether the monitoring system is fully and well functioning, whether the suspicious person is interrogated, etc.

3. If the property management company is negligent in any of the above aspects, it should bear a certain liability for compensation.

Article 271 of the Civil Code The owner shall have the ownership of the exclusive parts of the building, such as residential and commercial buildings, and shall enjoy the right of co-ownership and joint management of the common parts other than the exclusive parts.

According to practice, the property can be irresponsible for the theft of your home.

Because the property is only responsible for the safety of public places, for example, if your motorcycle or car parked in the public parking lot of the community is stolen, the property can bear some responsibility, but for home theft, it is not within the scope of the property.

If the signed property management contract has provisions on this, then the property management company shall compensate in accordance with the contractIf there is no agreement in this regard, it is necessary to analyze in detail the fault of the property company in the process of property loss. If the main responsibility lies with the utility company, then compensation is also required.

Theft has been converted into robbery, and there is generally no excessive defense, but if you clearly exceed the limit of defense, it may be a crime.

The thief resists and beats someone or **, at this time we have to exercise the right of legitimate defense and beat the thief hard, and he is not legally responsible for dishonest beating and injury.

Failure to exceed the necessary limit does not belong, and theft also translates into robbery.

When fighting a thief, as long as the thief is not killed, he will generally not be punished by law; But if the thief is killed, for any reason (except for the thief's sudden illness), he will be sentenced.

If the facts are as you know, then it is clearly justified self-defense and there is no need to be held responsible.

You can sign up, it's spring and fall, it's autumn.

Guangdong Open University.

Hello. The person who hits the person is criminally responsible. Although the legal person of the company spoke, it is difficult to identify an accomplice if there is no evidence.

However, according to Article 34 of the Tort Liability Law, "if an employee of an employer causes damage to others due to the performance of his work tasks, the employer shall bear the tort liability". What you are describing is a thief who comes to play, that is, when there is no theft, the employee injures him, which is not part of the performance of work tasks, and the company does not compensate, but the beater.

If the beater wants to reduce his responsibility, unless it is proved that the company legal person said this, even if it can be proved, the beater cannot be exempted from responsibility, because as an adult, the beater should have his own judgment ability, and he should be held responsible for doing it even though he knows that the instructions of his superiors are illegal.

Both the beater and the leader who says "hit the thief when you see it" are responsible, with the beater bearing the primary responsibility and the leader instigating the responsibility. If a person is seriously injured, it constitutes the crime of assault and is a joint crime. Among them, the beater is the principal offender, and the leader is the instigator, and bears the corresponding criminal and civil liabilities respectively.

"Instigator" refers to the use of persuasion, inducement, instigation, instigation, bribery, threat, or other methods to instill one's own criminal intent into a person who does not have criminal intent, causing him to commit a crime in accordance with the instigator's criminal intent, and instigating another person constitutes an instigator. The crime of abetment is characterized by the fact that the abettor does not commit the crime himself, but instigates others to carry out his own criminal intent. Therefore, the object of the instigation by the instigator shall be a person with the capacity for civil conduct and civil liability, and the instigator shall not constitute an accomplice relationship if he or she is under the age of 14 or who is mentally ill, and only the instigator shall be convicted and sentenced separately.

It is advisable to seek legal help from a lawyer as soon as possible.

Whoever beats and who bears it, as a person with full capacity for conduct, has the ability to distinguish whether the words of the leader of the unit are illegal or criminal.

It should be the one who hit it who is responsible. Civil liability!

Of course, I'm responsible.

If you see someone stealing, you can stop it and help the police to catch it, but if you use violence against them, you will be punished by law.

I once saw on TV a group of anti-pickpocketing people who were angry and hit the thief with a throwing stick, and about a month later, the thief died, and the anti-pickpocketing team members were arrested.

I am speaking realistically, if there are many people involved in the beating, the police will not do anything to them, but will praise them.

Although everyone is willing to let the thief be killed on the spot, from the perspective of human rights, they are still given a certain amount of protection, and they are brave enough to advocate for the prevention of theft and turn it over to the public security department. But the owner and the bystanders could not contain their pent-up anger, so they vented their flames on the thief. If it causes minor injury, minor injury, serious injury, or even death, the corresponding legal and criminal liability shall be paid.

He deserves to be beaten to death by the masses, doesn't the law blame the people? Stealing a car is dangerous, and you need to be cautious when entering the industry.

The masses are of course legally responsible for killing thieves. No one has the right to deprive anyone of their lives except the judiciary! No natural person in society can arbitrarily substitute for the power of the Public Procuratorate and Justice Department to enforce the law.

If it is justified defense, it is not necessary to bear criminal, administrative, or civil liability. If it does not constitute legitimate defense, it is excessive defense, and constitutes the crime of negligence causing death, negligence causing serious injury, intentional injury or intentional homicide, and bears criminal liability with civil compensation. The victim (who was beaten as a thief) can file a civil lawsuit attached to the criminal case in court.

According to ** reports: there are people who beat or even injure thieves and go to prison, and there are people who hit and kill thieves who are considered heroes but are sentenced. Thieves also have legal personal rights.

Yes, yes, yes.

Hello landlord:

Please see the following analysis for whether the property is compensated.

First of all, the property is only responsible for the safety of facilities and equipment and property in public parts, the vehicle is your private property, not included in the scope of the property fee, so the loss of the vehicle can only be responsible for yourself, however, if the owner has paid the property fee, within the scope of the property should work, the property has not performed its duties, has not been in accordance with the provisions of the normal inspection of the community security, or the security guard found that the theft has not been stopped, and the community monitoring facilities have long been damaged, the property has not been repaired in time and the case has increased the difficulty of detection. Property is responsible.

So, you should gather evidence first. Including the security guard's inspection record on the day, the registration of vehicles in and out, if the security guard does not do these according to the regulations, the property is responsible, you sort out the evidence to negotiate with the property on this matter, and the negotiation fails. Sue the court directly, as long as you have the evidence, the court will award you part of the liability.

Finally, it is recommended that you store your private property, including your vehicle, in a designated supervised parking lot, which will be much safer. Even if it is lost, there will be someone who will be responsible. A small fare in exchange for the safety of your property is not lost.

1.Yes. Article 36 of the "Property Management Regulations" property management enterprises shall provide corresponding services in accordance with the provisions of the property service contract.

Where a property management enterprise fails to perform the provisions of the property management service contract, resulting in damage to the personal and property safety of the owner, it shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility in accordance with law.

You should call the police and they will be responsible because there is a cost for the maintenance of the facilities in the strata fee, unless you have not paid the strata fee.

You should first look at the agreement signed between your community and the property management company, and then find out whether the property company has done its duty, if they have not done their duty enough, they should be responsible, if they have done enough, you don't need to sue them.

Generally speaking, there is a certain amount of responsibility for the property.

1. Defined according to the property service contract.

Whether the property stolen from the home should be liable for compensation. It is very important to depend on how the property service contract is stipulated in the written property service contract between the owners' committee and the property service company selected by the owners' general meeting, and under normal circumstances, the property service contract clearly stipulates the property management matters, service quality, service fees, rights and obligations of both parties, the management and use of special maintenance funds, property management housing, contract period, liability for breach of contract, etc. If there is a clear agreement, the property management service enterprise shall provide the corresponding services in accordance with the property management service contract.

Where a property management service enterprise fails to perform the provisions of the property management service contract, resulting in damage to the personal and property safety of the owner, it shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility in accordance with law.

According to Article 36 of China's "Property Management Regulations", "property service enterprises shall provide corresponding services in accordance with the provisions of the property service contract. Where a property management service enterprise fails to perform the provisions of the property management service contract, resulting in damage to the personal and property safety of the owner, it shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility in accordance with law.

to claim compensation from the property.

2. Defined according to the performance of responsibilities and obligations.

This kind of requirement is to see whether the property in the community has violated the property management contract, there is negligence, or negligence such as should be on duty but not on duty, or should enter the door to verify and did not let the thief in, etc., must prove that the property is at fault, otherwise, if the property company has fulfilled its duties, then you have no way to sue, because the property company is not omnipotent, it is impossible to guarantee that there is no such thing as this, and the public security bureau will be stolen.