As long as you fight back, it s a mutual assault? What is the definition of mutual assault and justi

That's not true; Mainly from the perspective of purpose, the purpose of legitimate defense is to protect the public or the safety of personal life from infringement, while mutual assault is a subjective act of consciousness for the purpose of causing physical harm to others.

1.It must be carried out for the purpose of protecting the State, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of the person or others from unlawful infringement.

2.There must have been an unlawful violation.

3.It must be an ongoing wrongful offense.

4.It must be committed against the wrongdoer himself.

5.Significant damage must not be caused in excess of what is clearly necessary.

If the other party threatens the life of the person concerned, it is justified to fight back at this time, but if there is only a verbal altercation and a fight is carried out, then it does not count.

Legal Analysis: Fighting back is generally a mutual assault and is not legitimate defense. According to the Criminal Law, justifiable defence refers to an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement and cause damage to the wrongdoer in order to protect the State, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of the person or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement.

Legal basis: "Law of the People's Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishments" Article 43 Whoever assaults another person or intentionally harms another person's body shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days and shall also be fined between 200 and 500 RMB; where the circumstances are more minor, they are to be detained for up to 5 days or fined up to 500 RMB. In any of the following circumstances, they are to be detained for between 10 and 15 days and fined between 500 and 1,000 RMB

1) Gang up to beat or injure others; (2) Beating or injuring persons with disabilities, pregnant women, persons under the age of 14, or persons over the age of 60. (3) Repeatedly beating or injuring others, or beating or injuring multiple people at a time.

Whether fighting back after being beaten is an act of mutual assault or justifiable defense needs to be determined based on the previous language of the perpetrator, and if the perpetrator has provoked and insulted others before, it will be considered a mutual assault.

Social and economic development is getting faster and faster, people's legal awareness is getting stronger and stronger, many people will get along with others in life will also have some contradictions, no matter how big the contradiction is, you can't hit people, only in this way can you better protect your legitimate rights and interests, I hope everyone can understand the relevant knowledge.

1. How should beating people be characterized?

When everyone quarrels with others in life, they will say cruel words to others, but they don't know that this kind of behavior has been suspected of provoking others, if it rises to a physical conflict, it will also be recognized as a mutual assault, most people have a wrong perception, that is, the first person to do it, must accept administrative or criminal punishment, and the person who does it later must be regarded as legitimate defense. But this kind of thinking is wrong, in real life the line between mutual assault and legitimate defense is very blurred, it is difficult to judge, so we must abide by the law in our lives and avoid physical confrontation with others.

2. What are the things that need to be paid attention to in justifiable defense?

In life, if we are illegally infringed by others, we can choose appropriate means to defend ourselves, but it should be noted that for legitimate defense, the purpose must be to ensure that legitimate rights and interests are not infringed.

3. How can we better protect our legitimate rights and interests in life?

Generally speaking, legitimate defense can be protected by law, but it should be noted that if you encounter violence in life, you can defend yourself, but you must pay attention to the limits of defense, if you do not have the ability to defend yourself, you must flee the scene as soon as possible to protect your life and avoid greater losses.

If the parties are beaten back, whether they are determined to be fighting each other or justified defense depends on the specific circumstances. If the opponent fights back in the process of being beaten, and the opponent stops after stopping, it is justified defense. ”

It's all about purpose. There is also evidence. You need to be able to prove that you are acting to stop the other person's behavior.

For example, if the other person hits you, or the other person hits someone else, you rush up and press the other person to the ground. However, it does not hurt the other party, but only restricts the other party's behavior, which is called self-defense or righteous courage.

But when you rush up and beat the other person, it's called hurting. The former is justified defense, while the latter may be mutual assault or excessive defense.

I think it should be regarded as legitimate defense, if the other party hits you, you don't fight back, and you can only hurt yourself in the end.

This is actually an act of assault, and if you fight back, then you may also have to bear some responsibility, and it is recommended that you run immediately.

As long as you do it, you are beating each other.

If you were beaten, why didn't you fight back? Doesn't it make sense to fight back? What is it called???

Subconsciously resisting when one's life is threatened is legitimate defense. If there is a conflict between two people and there is a relatively bad fight, then it is a mutual assault. The laws of our country are still relatively perfect, but there will be some people who will want to take advantage of the loopholes in the law.

For example, when you have a conflict with someone, you will always provoke the other person first and let the other person hit you first, so that if you make a move, you can find a reason to say that you are defending yourself. <>

However, this is a very wrong method, and the judgment of legitimate defense is also very strict, and if everyone is fighting each other, there is no way to judge it as legitimate defense. If you encounter a threat to your life, at this time you subconsciously fight back to ensure your safety, which is a legitimate defense. For example, when the opponent is raising his fist and preparing to attack, he subconsciously takes some objects or hard things next to him to block it because he is afraid, which belongs to this defense.

But if I see that the other person has the impression of attacking me, and I not only don't dodge, but also deliberately fights back, then this can easily be characterized as a mutual assault. If there is no unlawful infringement, then this does not belong to this set of defense, if the other party has unlawful infringement of their own safety, then it can be regarded as legitimate defense at this time. For example, the other party violates his or her right to health, the right to life, the right to property, the right to personal liberty, etc.

However, if the other party does not infringe on their legitimate rights, but the two people fight because of a quarrel, then this is a vicious mutual assault. Therefore, we must pay attention in our daily life, if you have a quarrel with someone outside, you must call the police in time, and do not cause a vicious brawl because of the quick moment, which is very bad for both parties.

It is not necessarily a mutual Europe, and fighting back when being beaten by Europe is a legitimate defense.

Fighting back when you are beaten is not a mutual assault but a legitimate defense. However, after the other party stops beating, the person being beaten should also immediately stop fighting back. In reality, the boundary between goods and legitimate defense is very blurred, and it is difficult to define and judge, so when judging whether it is legitimate defense, the following specific conditions should be considered.

Justifiable defence must occur when there is an unlawful offense. That is to say, when there is a violent incident and one's property and life are seriously violated, oneself rises up to resist, which is justified defense, especially when the other party beats oneself and causes oneself to be injured or one's life is about to be in danger, fighting back is justified defense and should not bear legal responsibility.

Just when defence is necessary and the unlawful encroachment is ongoing. If you see that the other party has the possibility of beating you before the incident occurs, and take the lead in attacking others, this is not legitimate defense, or if the other party beats you has ended, and you do not do it again, causing the other party to be injured or killed, this is not justified defense, and only when the other party infringes on your health and life, active resistance is justified defense.

Fighting back when one's lawful rights and interests are infringed upon is justified defense, because legitimate defense is used to protect one's legitimate rights and interests. When it comes to defense, it also depends on the intensity of the unlawful offense. For example, the unlawful infringement of theft is much smaller than intentional injury, because one is against property and the other is against people.

For example, the intentional injury caused by hitting someone with your hands or hitting someone with ** is also different, the intensity of the beating with a stick is greater, and the use of justified defense may be more intense.

Whether or not it is justified defense depends on the urgency of the unlawful offense. For example, when encountering danger, someone on the opposite side robs with a knife, or threatens himself with a knife, then there will be a sense of urgency of life, if there is only one person on the other side stealing, the sense of urgency will be much less, so in the face of urgent illegal infringement is left for people to think about less time, the body makes the right choice, and the subconscious resistance should belong to rational legitimate defense.

Of course not, if you are in a state of active defense when you are beaten, then it is legitimate defense. When one's life is threatened or oneself is subjected to violence by the other party, then it is justifiable defense.

You can fight back when you are beaten to breathe, but it doesn't have to be a defense!

Of course not, after you have been beaten by someone, you can stop the other person from committing violence against you, and this situation is justified defense.

Fighting back while being beaten is not an act of defending the assault, but in this case it is a case of legitimate self-defense.