Legal issues If A and B are two good friends, for the purpose of having fun

1. Civil liability: B should be liable for compensation if he stabbed A to death, but A is also at fault, and B's liability can be reduced

2. Criminal Liability: Individuals believe that B is not guilty and does not bear criminal responsibility

1.It does not constitute the crime of negligence causing death: B mistakenly believes that A is a zombie, and there is no intention to kill in the first place; Second, although it is possible for B to realize that it will be a person or other animal who makes the cry of doom in the night, and go out to check it, A disguises it is more like, and B mistakenly thinks that it is really a knife to stab A, so B does not realize and should not realize that there may be a dead person, so B is not negligent

2.Does not constitute justifiable defense: because the actor of justifiable defense subjectively believes that the object of defense is a person or property, but B mistakenly believes that A is a zombie

3.It does not constitute emergency avoidance: because zombies do not have legal interests, it is subjectively impossible for B to stab A to death in order to balance legal interests

Therefore, the act should be in the defense of things, i.e., an accident is equivalent to B killing a beast or killing a mouse

1. Mistaken for loss, it's too inappropriate, mistaken for a dog, and a wild boar is a little better. In short, distinguish between humans and animals. If you think it's some kind of beast, then it should be an emergency avoidance, no responsibility.

2. If you know that someone is scaring you, pay attention to the fact that you are only scared, and there is no harm, and there is no reason to fight back. So A is similar to an imaginary defense, but it is not an imaginary defense. It's intentional harm.

When someone dies, it is the crime of intentional injury. The law analyzes your state of mind based on your behavior, etc., and restores the subjective through objectivity, so it can only be determined that you are intentional about the consequences caused by your actions.

Think about it, you said to the judge, I thought it was a loss who was going to attack me, who would believe it, but instead thought you were clumsy.

This may give rise to a debate between intentional injury and negligent death.

However, I tend to convict the crime of intentional injury, and the result is aggravated.

If a person dies by negligence, B is fully responsible, on the grounds that there are many ways to protect himself in the face of a possible and potential threat, such as calling for help or escaping, and it is inappropriate for B to choose to fight back violently with a knife. The above is purely a personal opinion and is for reference only.

Summary. Article 20 of China's Criminal Law stipulates that if an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement is taken in order to protect the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing unlawful infringement, and causes damage to the unlawful infringer, it is justified defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

Where legitimate defense clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes major harm, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but punishment shall be commuted or waived. The wrongful infringement must be real. If there is no unlawful offense, but the perpetrator mistakenly believes that there is an unlawful offense, it is a hypothetical defence.

Where the perpetrator of hypothetical defense is subjectively negligent and constitutes a crime of negligence, it is to be handled as a crime of negligence. If the perpetrator is not subjectively negligent, it is to be handled as an accident. On the other hand, deliberately carrying out the so-called "defense" against a lawful act is an intentional illegal and criminal act.

A and B got into a big fight over a trivial matter, and B's friend kept applauding him, and A turned his head and stabbed B's friend in a fit of rage.

Article 20 of China's Criminal Law stipulates that if an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement is taken in order to protect the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing unlawful infringement, and causes damage to the unlawful infringer, it is justified defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. Where legitimate defense clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes major harm, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but punishment shall be commuted or waived.

The wrongful infringement must be real. If there is no unlawful offense, but the perpetrator mistakenly believes that there is an unlawful offense, it is a hypothetical defence. Where the perpetrator of hypothetical defense is subjectively negligent and constitutes a crime of negligence, it is to be handled as a crime of negligence.

If the perpetrator is not subjectively negligent, it is to be handled as an accident. On the other hand, deliberately carrying out the so-called "defense" against a lawful act is an intentional illegal and criminal act.

Hope it helps

Summary. Dear, if it were me, I would chat with A and B alone, and then persuade A to return the things to B, because this is B's thing, so that he will realize that he should not argue with others for the sake of face. Then tell B that A accidentally took B's equipment, and B asked to return it, and A felt that B did not give face and had a quarrel with B, and the two of them did not give in to each other, if so, how would you persuade him?

Dear, if it were me, I would chat with A and B alone, and then persuade A to return the things to B, because this was originally B's eastward faction, so that Weichun realized that he should not fight with others for the sake of face. Then tell B, although A took your equipment, but he was careless, just talk to him and let him return the equipment, there is no need to make too much trouble, everyone is in a laboratory. In the evening, I will make a game and call everyone to go to dinner together.

Well, now it's B who talks too much, and A feels that he can't hold his face, so he agrees to return B's equipment, but B has to dismantle it himself. B has to let A dismantle the equipment.

Then the first is dismantled and returned, how to take it and how to return it, it should be dismantled, in fact, the first is wrong, although it is careless, but it is not reasonable.

A just didn't want to tear it down, so he asked B to tear it down, because he felt that B didn't give him face.

Dear, are you a third person.

I heard A say that when he dismantled B's equipment, B didn't know, but then B arrived, and he told him, and now B asked him to return the equipment, and he felt that B didn't give face.

I'm the team leader, and I'm thinking about how to persuade them in the future.

I think both of them have a point, and this thing is not standard.

Then don't distinguish who is right and who is wrong, let A give you the equipment, and then you dismantle it to B, let Sen Hong and the two of you give you a face in this file, and then stupidly shout to find a chance to form a game, and everyone eats.

That's a good idea, that's all, thank you.

I hope your group's problems can be solved smoothly.

Summary. Hello dear! A and B have a conflict, A calls C and D to take B to the suburbs, and then sends B back, which is a kidnapping.

Where violence, coercion, or other methods are used to kidnap others, or to kidnap others as hostages, for the purpose of extorting property or taking hostages, it may be found to be the crime of kidnapping. According to article 239 of the Criminal Law, whoever kidnaps another person for the purpose of extorting property, or kidnaps another person as a hostage, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment and shall also be fined or have his property confiscated, and where the circumstances are more minor, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 5 years but not more than 10 years and shall also be fined.

A and B have a conflict, A asks C and D to take B to the suburbs, and then send B back, is it kidnapping?

Hello dear! A and B have a conflict, A calls C and D to take B to the suburbs, and the mountain Qiaoling sends B back, which is a kidnapping. Kidnapping others by violence, coercion, or other methods for the purpose of extorting property or taking hostages, or kidnapping others as hostages, may be found to be the crime of kidnapping.

According to article 239 of the Criminal Law, whoever kidnaps another person for the purpose of extorting property, or kidnaps another person as a hostage, shall be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment or life imprisonment and shall also be fined or have his property confiscated, and where the circumstances are more minor, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 5 years but not more than 10 years and shall also be fined.

Hello, you can call the police to deal with it.

Ask him to choose a number, then write the remaining two numbers on two cards, and arrange the cards in a line as 1 and 2. OK, ask the question: 1 number is 1 or 1, 2 is 1 and 3, right?

Analysis:....It's too complicated to say, and it must be clear that "don't know" means "yes or no".

So let's take an example, I have a basket of apples in my left hand and apples in my right hand, so when I ask, "There are apples in the basket or apples in my hand, right?" The answer is "yes" if there is no apple in the hand, the answer is not known (yes or no), and if there is no in the basket and there is no in the hand, then the answer is no.

The same can be said for the problem of numbers.

Just ask him what number he has in mind.

You didn't pick the numbers 1 and 2, right?

If the amount is relatively large, it is suspected of fraud and shall be sentenced to up to three years imprisonment, short-term detention or controlled release, and/or a fine.

The crime of fraud refers to the use of fictitious facts or methods to conceal the truth for the purpose of illegal possession to defraud a relatively large amount of public or private property.

Criminal Law: Article 266: Where public or private property is defrauded and the amount is relatively large, a sentence of up to three years imprisonment, short-term detention or controlled release is to be given, and/or a fine; where the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, a sentence of between 3 and 10 years imprisonment is to be given, and a concurrent fine is to be given; where the amount is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances, a sentence of 10 or more years imprisonment or indefinite imprisonment is to be given, and a concurrent fine or confiscation of property. Where this Law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.

The Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Fraud" provides: Where public or private property is defrauded with a value of 3,000 to 10,000 RMB, 30,000 to 100,000 RMB, or 500,000 RMB, it shall be respectively found to be a "relatively large amount", "huge amount", or "especially huge amount" as provided for in article 266 of the Criminal Law.

The high people's courts and people's procuratorates of all provinces, districts, and municipalities directly under the Central Government may, in consideration of the economic and social development situation in their respective regions, and within the range of amounts provided for in the preceding paragraph, jointly research and determine the specific monetary standards for enforcement in that region, and report them to the Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate for filing.

Spread directly on Weibo, a slap doesn't make a sound, flies don't bite seamless eggs, it must be all B's responsibility, why don't you hit Bingding and only hit you B?