The difference between justifiable defense and emergency avoidance

The difference between emergency evacuation and justifiable defense is as follows:

1 dangerous ** different. The danger of justifiable self-defense** is the unlawful infringement of man; The danger of emergency avoidance is relatively extensive, which can be illegal infringement, natural disasters, and animal invasions.

2. Emergency evacuation must be out of necessity, and justifiable defense does not require this.

3.The requirements for the subject are different, and the emergency evacuation requires that the subject cannot have a specific identity (such as a police officer, military personnel or firefighter, etc.). And justifiable defense does not have such a requirement. Everyone has the right to legitimate defence.

4.Depending on the object of implementation, justifiable defense can only be carried out against the wrongdoer, while emergency avoidance must be carried out against a third party.

Legal basis] Article 21 of the Criminal Law provides that in order to protect the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from the danger that is occurring, the person who has to take emergency measures to avoid danger and cause damage, shall not bear criminal responsibility. Where emergency evacuation exceeds the necessary limit and causes undue harm, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but punishment shall be commuted or waived. The provisions of the first paragraph concerning the avoidance of personal danger do not apply to persons who have specific responsibilities in their duties or operations.

The difference between justifiable defense and emergency avoidance

The harm in justifiable defense can only be the unlawful infringement carried out by the person; The hazards in emergency avoidance are not limited to human illegal infringement, but can also be the forces of nature and the invasion of animals;

2. The object to which the behavior is directed is different:

Justifiable defense can only be exercised against the wrongdoer himself, and cannot harm the interests of others who did not participate in the unlawful offense; The emergency shelter can only damage the interests of a third party that has nothing to do with the occurrence of the danger;

3. The restrictions on behavior are different:

Emergency avoidance requires that the perpetrator must be the only way to eliminate the danger as a last resort; There is no such requirement for justifiable defence;

4. The limits of the degree of damage are different

The damage caused by justifiable defence is permissible to be equal to or greater than the damage that may be caused by the wrongful act; The legitimate rights and interests harmed by the emergency shelter must be less than the legitimate rights and interests protected;

5. The limitation of the subject is different:

Justifiable defense generally has no special requirements for the defender, and can be practiced as long as the conditions for justifiable defense are met; Emergency avoidance does not apply to persons who have specific responsibilities in their duties or business to avoid personal danger.

Legal basisArticle 21 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.

Emergency avoidance] In order to protect the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from the danger that is occurring, the act of emergency avoidance that has to be taken, and the damage is caused, shall not bear criminal responsibility.