What is the difference between assault and self defense?

In many cases of intentional injury, the suspects often have a wrong understanding of their own behavior, and they think that the cause of the incident is provoked by the victim, how can they become criminals in the end! Therefore, they do not have a good attitude when cooperating with the work of the investigative organs, and they are always defending themselves, so there is a difference between theory and practice in how to understand legitimate defense and mutual assault in this case.

In the course of the investigation by the investigating organs, because the two sides insisted on their own words, the investigating organs were unable to define their responsibilities, so the public security held that as long as two people fought, they would be directly identified as mutual assault regardless of the order.

That is to say, when two people fight, one party must first use the method of fleeing to cause preparations for legitimate defense, and the other party continues to chase and fight, and the other party fights back when being chased and beaten, before it is determined that you are justified defense.

This forms a very important distinction, in the case of mutual assault, regardless of who is right and wrong, first determine that you do it at the same time, if it can be clear that one party acts first, you can determine that this party is at fault, and it can be required to bear more corresponding responsibilities in civil compensation. However, the police will not determine that the other party is justified because of who made the first move, because the other party also has a way to escape and avoid danger, and if the party does not use it, but directly uses it, then it will be deemed to be a mutual assault.

This is a gray area of the law, and in this regard, many defenders emphasize this first-mover fault responsibility when defending criminal suspects. However, the court will only consider it when it comes to attached civil litigation, and will not ignore the criminal part at all, and I personally think that in cases where it is clear that one party deliberately provoked the incident, whether to give a statutory mitigating circumstance in the criminal judgment.

Legal common sense: What is the difference between mutual assault and justifiable defense?

1. The purpose is different. The purpose of justifiable defense is to protect the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from the ongoing infringement of the law; Fighting with each other is a subjective act of consciousness with the purpose of causing physical harm to others. 2. Different legal responsibilities.

Legitimate self-defense is not subject to criminal liability.