On the question of excessive defense, on the question of excessive defense

Excessive defense refers to acts in which legitimate defense clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes significant harm to the unlawful offender.

Excessive defense has the following main characteristics:

1) Must be significantly more than necessary. The "necessary limit" here refers to the strength of defence necessary to effectively stop the unlawful offense; "Clearly exceeding the necessary limit" means that the average person can recognize that the strength of his or her defence has exceeded the strength necessary for legitimate defence, that is, whether the defensive act can stop the ongoing unlawful offense.

2) Significant damage has been caused to the wrongdoer. The term "major harm" here refers to serious consequences such as unlawful infringement of the person's person due to the defender's defensive act that clearly exceeds the necessary limit.

In short, when faced with illegal infringement, if the infringement can be stopped by more moderate means, do not use drastic defensive means; When the violation has been stopped, no further harm should be inflicted on the aggressor. Otherwise, the limit of legitimate defence may be exceeded and become excessively defensive.

Justifiable defense refers to a certain and necessary defensive act carried out in order to eliminate the danger of imminent, occurring, or already occurring that infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of oneself or others. In China's criminal law, the scope and conditions of justifiable defense are stipulated, and the following are some basic standards:

1.It must be a current hazard, not a latent hazard;

2.It must be the present or trembling imminent danger, not the danger of the past;

3.It must be an unavoidable danger and not a danger that can be avoided by other means;

4.It must be of an equivalent nature, i.e., the act of defence cannot exceed the level of danger;

5.It must be a reasonable and necessary means of defence, and no excessive and redundant measures may be taken;

6.It must be an act of defence that does not manifestly exceed the necessary limits.

In short, justifiable defense must be carried out on the basis of lawfulness, necessity, moderation, and timeliness, and acts such as excessive defense, exceeding the necessary limit, or taking the initiative are all violations of Lao Dongpei's standards for justifiable defense. If the excessive behavior causes the death or serious injury of another person, the perpetrator shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility.

Circumstances that constitute death due to excessive self-defense:

1. The defender clearly knows that his defensive act will clearly exceed the necessary limit of legitimate defense and cause major damage, and allows such major damage to occur in order to achieve the purpose of legitimate defense, it is indirect and intentional excessive defense.

2. The defender knows that his defensive behavior may clearly exceed the necessary limit of legitimate defense and cause significant damage, but he is gullible enough to believe that such major damage will not occur, which is excessive self-confidence and negligence.

3. The defender should know that his actions clearly exceeded the necessary limit of legitimate defense and caused major damage, and if he was negligent and did not foresee it, so that major damage occurred, it was negligent negligence.

1. The criteria for determining excessive defense are clear.

The criteria for determining excessive defense are as follows: the defender clearly knows that his defensive conduct will clearly exceed the necessary limit of legitimate defense, thereby causing significant harm. Allowing such damage to occur for the sake of defence is an excessive indirect defence.

For the ongoing homicide and other violent criminal acts, due to the urgency of the situation, the defender does not need to bear criminal responsibility for the illegal invasion of Suihuai and the noisy victimization due to the urgency of the situation, but it is not considered excessive defense.

2. Excessive self-defense is not justified self-defense.

Our law clearly stipulates the criteria for judging excessive defense:

1. The defender clearly knows that his defensive act will clearly exceed the necessary limit of legitimate defense and cause major damage, and allows such major damage to occur in order to achieve the purpose of legitimate defense, it is indirect and intentional excessive defense.

2. The defender knows that his defensive behavior may clearly exceed the necessary limit of legitimate defense and cause significant damage, but he is gullible enough to believe that such major damage will not occur, which is excessive self-confidence and negligence.

3. It is a negligence to guess that the defender should have known that his actions clearly exceeded the necessary limit of legitimate defense and caused significant damage, and if he failed to foresee it because of negligence, and thus caused major damage, it is negligent negligence.

It's a bit like imaginary defense, because the night watchman approached the other party with a knife first, and the other party hit each other with fists, and it was difficult to threaten the life of the night watchman in the absence of other **, and the night watchman did not take reasonable rescue measures afterwards to the death of the other party.

There are three types of defense:

First, legitimate self-defense does not exceed the necessary limits and is not responsible.

Second, if the defense is excessive, exceeding the necessary limit, and being responsible for part of the responsibility, but not all of it.

Third, the right to unlimited defense, the Criminal Code stipulates that when the nine crimes are being committed, no matter what consequences you cause by defense, you will not be responsible.

What you're talking about is only a minor injury, and he's chasing you and won't hold you responsible. Unless you make him dead or disabled, you will be held accountable for a part of the state, and mainly in civil liability.

Hello! If you don't have a dish with you, *** picks it up and hurts the other party in the process of being chased and beaten, which is legitimate defense. Excessive defence is just a theoretical concept.

You are actually suspected of intentional injury, depending on the injuries of several other people. Where legitimate defense clearly exceeds the necessary limits and causes major harm, it shall be liable.

criminal responsibility, but punishment shall be commuted or waived.

Committing **, killings, robberies, kidnappings, and others.

Where a violent crime that seriously endangers personal safety, and an act of defense is taken, causing an unlawful offense, it is not considered excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. Those who intentionally injure the body of others are to be sentenced to up to three years.

fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention or controlled release.

Whoever commits the crime in the preceding paragraph, causing serious injury, is to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years; Whoever causes death or seriously injures a person by especially cruel means, causing serious disability, is to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment, or similar punishment. Where this Law provides otherwise, follow those provisions. In addition, you will be liable for the cost of civil compensation.

First, first resolve the issue of whether it is legitimate defense.

The essence of justifiable defense is the act taken against a criminal suspect within reasonable limits in order to avoid unlawful aggression. According to your description, "he slashed at me with a shovel, was blocked by his colleague, and then his colleague used it to cut him in the process of blocking", it is already clear that your colleague actually blocked the slashing behavior that occurred later, so it is not legitimate defense in the legal sense. Of course, if you can prove that your colleague continues to commit violence against you or your colleague after the other person stops it, it is justified defense.

2. According to the opinion of the police station, it is certain that your injuries do not meet the standards of a criminal case, so you do not need to worry about being prosecuted (that is, going to court, as you said).

Hello, it's not over-defensive. This is a tort in your civil dispute, and you can apply for an accident liability determination and a disability determination.

The employer shall compensate for the injuries suffered by the worker in the course of work. If you are at fault, the unit can recover from you.

Can you recall who caused the accident first? This kind of behavior can be reported directly, and you can also directly apply for accident liability identification and injury grade identification. The innocent party bears less or no responsibility in accordance with the law If the fault of both parties is equal, each party shall bear its own medical and other losses. . .

As long as there is evidence that it is not your fault, you should not be responsible for the loss, on the contrary, you can still get your lost work expenses, mental damages, medical expenses and other expenses. It's okay, this kind of infringement is not in the category of criminal law.

It depends on the situation. But he cuts you with a shovel, and the result of death is predictable. So if you hit the opponent in the head in the middle of the defense, it should be predictable that you will die. So it can also be said to be over-defensive.

Just defense, I'm afraid, can't be talked about.

Legal advice, **QQ friends.

It's better to give some money, it's hard to establish legitimate defense.