In your opinion, what level of retaliation is justified defense?

Generally speaking, there is a principle of justifiable defense, that is, it is necessary to compel the wrongdoer to stop the offense, that is, the purpose and degree of the defender's act is to stop the offense. For example, if the other party punches you and immediately retreats, this means that the illegal infringement has been completed, and if you go up and hit him again, it is not defense but revenge, which constitutes a fight. For example, if the opponent punches you continuously, you can dodge or block with your hand in order to force him to stop, or you can fight back to make him stop, but once you stop, you have to stop.

What about "justifiable defense"? As an example, when a bad guy is pointing a knife at you, you can't fight back because the damage "hasn't started yet." When the bad guy's knife is inserted into your body, you still can't fight back, because the damage "automatically stops".

When the bad guy's knife is pulled out of you, you still can't fight back because the damage is "done". Violation of any of the above articles is considered "excessive defense" and is subject to criminal liability. So what is "justifiable defense"?

It's very simple, at the moment when the bad guy stabs you with a knife, you judge accurately, quickly counterattack, grab the knife and kill the enemy, and kill the enemy with one blow, which belongs to "legitimate defense". Tech live!

Where an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement is taken in order to protect the state, the public interest, or the person, property, or other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement, and causes damage to the unlawful infringer, it is justified defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

When one foot enters hell, you can only fight back, when the knife pierces the heart by one centimeter, counterattacking is considered excessive defense, and the knife can only resist when it enters the heart at 0.01 centimeter, otherwise it is not legitimate defense.

That is to say, as long as the other party has the ability and intention to continue to harm you, you can continue to defend. You are right to say this, but whether you can kill or not depends on whether it complies with the provisions of Article 20 of the Criminal Law, and if the other party just keeps scratching you and scratching you instead of infringing on you in a deadly way, of course you can't harm his life.

It's really not so easy to judge whether it's justified defense, it's too unclear, the only trick is to hold your head and make people not fight back, just see someone else's ** hiding away.

The necessary limit means that no matter what the other party wants to do, if you defeat him, he can no longer continue to infringe or you can call for help and run away, then you can't continue to defend; The other party is barehanded, you can't hold a knife; The other party wants to hurt you lightly, you can't seriously hurt him.

The level of violence in justifiable defence should be bounded by the fact that it does not manifestly exceed the necessary limit and that no significant harm has been caused. I think it is okay as long as it deprives the perpetrator of the ability to continue to violate the victim, as long as it is not clearly exceeded and significant harm is caused.

Justifiable defense, the act of stopping the illegal infringer that is harming the national public interest, the personal or property or other rights of oneself or others, and the act of stopping the illegal infringer and clearly not exceeding the necessary limit. It must not be significantly exceeded, and there must be no significant damage. Justifiable self-defense may reduce or waive punishment.

If the other party is unable to continue the infringement and stops the infringement, it is possible to overdefend and intentionally injure.

In order to achieve the purpose and effectiveness of the defensive act, it is both necessary and lawful for the intensity of the defensive act and the harmful consequences it causes to appropriately exceed the intensity of the unlawful infringement and the harmful consequences it may cause; However, it must not "significantly exceed" the necessary limit and cause "significant harm". Otherwise, it would be an overdefence.

My legitimate defense is that when someone hits me, I will hit someone for a while, and when someone is about to kill me, I will knock someone down one second before the fatality, and not for the first three seconds, because the lawyer will say that the criminal may stop in the penultimate second.

When his personal safety is about to be seriously violated, it doesn't matter what kind of defense he has, it is the best policy to kill the other party first, after all, life is better than anything else.

The United States launched a 50 billion ** war against our country, and our country fought back forcefully, which is legitimate defense.

According to the purposive requirements of legitimate defence, the act of defence should be sufficient to stop the unlawful offense. If the intensity of the unlawful aggression and the defensive act are basically equal, the two can usually only be evenly matched.

Justified defense is that someone else takes a knife to kill you, you can use a knife or a wooden stick, a stone at the same time, kill the opponent with one move, if you beat him down all of a sudden, he does not launch a change of attack on you, then you want to beat him to death, you are excessive, this law is not as good as the United States, under normal circumstances, there is no unprovoked killing, but the reason is different.

What is justifiable defense? In my opinion, self-defense is when someone uses force against you and threatens your own safety, and starts to fight back, this is legitimate defense! Could it be that waiting for someone to beat you to the point of dying is the right defense?

If you don't open your mouth, you can't fight back, and waiting for the police to arrive at the scene to rescue you is only legitimate defense

There is no legitimacy in front of power and money, it is all crooked, and it can't be right.

The most classic case is the plot of Saint Seiya, when you are beaten to death, the small universe can explode, and then beat the other party to death, so Athena can win the final victory, because according to the regulations, it is a very standard legitimate defense!

There is no such thing as justifiable defense, when you are killed, it is justifiable defense.

The other party causes or is about to cause bodily harm to you in self-defense, that is, you are in danger, and the defense is justified in this case. When the other party stops hurting you, that is, the other party's behavior does not pose a threat to your personal safety, and fighting back at this time is to defend yourself too much.

Legitimate defense doesn't know much, don't comment on things you don't understand, but I have a little dabbling in impropriety, so when you encounter this situation, you should first use the improper way you are familiar with, and then wait for the person who understands, humbly ask for advice, pay attention to corrections, and finally bow to the comrades who were knocked down by us on the opposite side, apologize, say sorry, how to deal with the rest, how to deal with it, solve it everyone, hello, I'm good, everyone, if it is not solved, then develop in the direction of not solving it well, New era and new style, take the initiative to carry forward the spirit of the Chinese nation, and be a good law-abiding citizen!

The two sides quarreled over things, one side hit the other first, and the other party immediately fought back. This is usually considered to be an act of mutual assault, where both parties are actively pursuing the result of unlawfully harming the other party, and there is no intention of legitimate defense, which cannot constitute legitimate defense, and both parties should bear corresponding legal responsibility.

to see whether the apparent limit of defence has been exceeded, i.e., he has given up or for other objective reasons that he cannot continue to commit violent aggression.

It is a mutual assault, not a legitimate defense. However, because the other party is at fault, you can reduce your liability for compensation.

In the case of a fight, there is no legitimate defense, and the civil compensation can be reduced by proving the fault of the other party.

It's not justified defense, and you may have to lose some money

The topic of justifiable defense has always been discussed by the public, and it is difficult for friends to understand exactly what constitutes "justifiable defense". Therefore, in real life, some people think that "fighting back means beating each other", which also makes some victims afraid to defend themselves.

So under what circumstances is it justified to fight back? Article 20 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China provides:Where an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement is taken in order to protect the state, the public interest, or the person, property, or other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement, and causes damage to the unlawful infringer, it is justified defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

Anyone who takes defensive action against people who are carrying out **, shaping, robbery, rape, kidnapping, and other violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety, causing an unlawful infringer, is not considered to be in excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

The analysis of the relevant criminal lawyer pointed out that the justifiable defense must have the following constituent conditions:

1) The conditions for the object of justifiable defense require that justifiable defense must be directed against the unlawful act being committed, and the so-called "defense" cannot be carried out against lawful acts and third parties.

(2) The purpose of justifiable defense must be to protect the legitimate rights and interests of oneself or others and the public interest, that is, the purpose must be legitimate and just.

3) The practical conditions of justifiable defense, that is, justifiable defense must be directed against the actual and ongoing infringement, and neither advance defense nor pretended defense is justified defense, otherwise the perpetrator will bear legal responsibility.

4) The limit of justifiable defense, that is, the appropriateness of the form and intensity of defense, the strength of defense must be commensurate with the intensity of the offense, and the limit should be sufficient to effectively stop the offense.

From the conditions for the constitution of justifiable defense, we can also see that whether a case can be judged as justifiable defense requires a comprehensive analysis of specific events, and there is no conclusive conclusion. If you act to protect yourself and others from harm, and you do it appropriately, and there is no intention to harm others, then there is a high probability that you will be judged to be justified in self-defense.

Let's take an example: someone who drinks alcohol and provokes another person, or even beats him. In order to protect himself, the other person took up a stick to resist, and accidentally hit the other party while escaping, causing serious facial injuries.

In such cases, they will generally not be prosecuted, and can be judged as legitimate defense.

Let's take another example: a woman was killed by two men on her way home from work, and the woman resisted and accidentally stabbed the abuser with a knife, resulting in her death. Under normal circumstances, this would also be judged as normal defense.

When we are victimized, we must dare to protect our own rights and interests, correctly exercise our rights, and do not have to worry about the so-called "fighting back is fighting each other".

Being beaten back is considered justified self-defense. "Justifiable defense" refers to the act taken to stop the unlawful offense against a person who is in the process of unlawful offense, and where damage is caused to the unlawful offender, it is justified defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. According to Article 20 of the Criminal Law, an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement in order to protect the State, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement and causes damage to the wrongdoer shall be regarded as legitimate self-defense and shall not bear criminal responsibility.

According to Article 20 of the Criminal Law, an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement in order to protect the State, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement and causes damage to the wrongdoer shall be regarded as legitimate self-defense and shall not bear criminal responsibility.

Fights and brawls are illegal, and both parties should bear corresponding legal responsibilities regardless of whether they are the first to do so or the old ones later, and generally do not constitute legitimate defense. According to the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law", anyone who assaults another person or intentionally injures another person's body shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days and shall also be fined not less than 200 yuan but not more than 500 yuan; where the circumstances are more minor, they are to be detained for up to 5 days or fined up to 500 RMB. Justifiable defense refers to the act taken to stop the unlawful infringement against the person who is committing the unlawful offense, and causes damage to the unlawful offender, which is a positive defense of the offense, and does not bear criminal responsibility.

China's Criminal Law has clear provisions on legitimate defense, and legitimate defense also has a "degree" limit, which is not unlimited, and exceeding a certain "degree" is "excessive defense," and it is necessary to bear corresponding legal responsibility.