Is he justified, is this justifiable?

When the other party hits your friend, if your friend does not have any ** in his hand, the other party does not constitute legitimate defense. But if your friend has ** in his hand, and the action is very large, which directly leads to the safety of the other party's life, then the other party constitutes legitimate defense, and killing your friend is considered a wasted killing.

Also, talk about your friends. The reason is the same as mentioned above, the other party did not want your friend's life, and your friend is not considered legitimate defense. But it seems that according to what you said, your friend has suffered a loss, and it is a minor injury, then the other party must be held criminally responsible for it.

If the other party wants to be exempted, it is probably to say how they are justified in self-defense and so on, but if the other party says to me in the first paragraph, it does not constitute justifiable defense, because your friend does not pose a threat to their lives.

According to the regulations, the following five elements must be met at the same time for justifiable defence[1]:

1. It must be implemented for the purpose of protecting the state, the public interest, the personal, property rights and other rights of oneself or others from illegal infringement. Such unlawful infringement may be directed against the State, collectives, or natural persons; It may be for oneself or for another person; It may be an infringement of personal rights, or an infringement of property or other rights, as long as the act is carried out to protect legitimate rights and interests from unlawful infringement, it meets these requirements.

2. There must be an illegal infringement. The so-called "unlawful infringement" refers to the infringement of certain rights or interests that is expressly prohibited by law, including both criminal acts and illegal infringements.

3. It must be an ongoing illegal infringement. The purpose of justifiable defence is to stop the unlawful infringement and avoid the harmful consequences, so the unlawful infringement must be ongoing, not yet started, or committed, or the perpetrator has indeed stopped voluntarily. Otherwise, it is an inappropriate time to defend itself and should bear criminal responsibility.

4. It must be carried out against the wrongdoer himself. That is, the act of justifiable defense cannot cause damage to a third party (including the family members of the wrongdoer) who has not committed the unlawful offense.

5. It is not allowed to cause significant damage beyond the necessary limit. Justifiable defense is a lawful act that is beneficial to society and should be subject to certain limits, that is, legitimate defense should be limited to the extent that it is sufficient to stop the unlawful infringement. On the other hand, unlawful aggression is often a sudden attack, and the defender is often unprepared, and the situation is urgent, and the mental tension is high.

Generally, it is difficult to quickly determine the degree of danger of the true intent of the unlawful aggression at the time of the defensive act, and there is no condition to accurately select an appropriate defense method, tool and intensity to defend it. Therefore, as long as it does not cause significant harm in excess of the necessary limit, it should be justified defence.

Who is you referring to?

This statement must be wrong, but your boyfriend must be wrong, both sides have knives in their hands, this is a violent incident, if this is considered defense, then the society is better than Ye'an.

Can I fight back when someone hits me?

What is justifiable defense? Star Awareness Project

In this case, of course, it is justifiable defense. To put it simply, legitimate defense is to strike when it is time to strike, and to confront the other party with the same strength, and at the same time.

If, while fighting, B stabs A with a knife and A loses the ability to continue to injure, he should stop attacking A further. If the death of the knife is the reason, it may be judged as justified defense or excessive defense. But when you know that A has fallen and has no further ability to attack, you are afraid that A will retaliate in the future, and then step forward to kill A, which is intentional homicide!

Due to the complexity of the situation, it is also necessary to see the evidence adduced by the lawyer in the defense. Here's the general direction of the decision.

Your description should be justified defense.

1. A's actions are justified defense, and rescue measures were taken in a timely manner after slashing B, and A does not need to bear legal responsibility according to the law;

2. The other 4 persons shall be dealt with as the crime of intentional injury and shall be punished according to the circumstances.

A is an over-defense, and B is an intentional injury.

In such a situation, of course, A is defending normally. B's other people also had varying degrees of responsibility, injuring people with weapons, forcibly entering people's homes, and gathering crowds to fight.

As you say: Defend yourself without any responsibility!

What is justifiable defense? Star Awareness Project

Can I fight back when someone hits me?