The photo-strike fracture of a student at Hubei Teacher University: the second case of minor injury was referred to the prosecution, where the school claimed to await the outcome of the judicial proceedings

A student of the Huangxi University of Huangxi City, Hubei Province, who was taken by the school guards for photographs taken in the public area of the campus, was subjected to forced control, causing a fracture to the right hand ' s palm, which, according to a judicial opinion, constituted a minor injury to the second degree. Four months after the incident, the school first issued an official circular on 6 November, confirming that a criminal case had been opened by the public security organs and that the investigation had been closed and referred to the prosecution service for review and prosecution. However, the school described the incident as “physical contact” during the process of dissuasion, which triggered public rebuttal by the students concerned.

One student was physically assaulted at the criminal case level because of multiple control over the photograph, and the results of the disciplinary proceedings against the defence officers were still not published in the school, on the grounds that they were awaiting a judicial decision.

A picture of a clash and a student being pushed down

On the morning of 7 July, according to Red Star News, student Zhao Xiao Fu of the Hubei Teacher Training University went downstairs to buy breakfast and, as he passed through the public area of the campus, he found a crowd gathering and took a picture of him on his mobile phone out of curiosity.

Zhao Xiaofu stated that there was no cordon at the scene and no one was wearing police uniforms or presenting law enforcement documents. He was photographed and brought to the attention of the scene, after which he was chased to the nearby supermarket in an attempt to rob his mobile phone.

Zhao Xiao Fu indicated to the media that Wu Hoi, a self-declared staff member of the School Guard, had locked his arms back and pushed him to the ground without showing his identity card or explaining the reasons for the coercive measures. Another defender, Shayt al-Nay, was later involved in control, during which he was strangled.

According to his description, he repeatedly expressed pain and asked the other party to cease control, but did not receive a timely response. He was then taken to the school security office and was refused a request to hand over his mobile phone password.

Upon arrival, Zhao was taken to hospital.

Hospital examinations revealed that the fifth cebra of his right hand was fractured at the far end of the line, with numerous soft tissue injuries. On 9 July, he was operated on for a fracture, on 14 July, after being assessed for minor injuries as level II, and discharged on 22 July.

The injuries left behind by the conflict did not end with his discharge. Zhao Jo Jo Fo stated that the right-hand finger had been unable to bend normally for a time and required continuous rehabilitation training. After the video was distributed online, there were others who mistakenly thought that he had been caught stealing from the supermarket, causing additional damage to his reputation.

Criminal cases opened by public security organs, and $91,000 in trust paid by the personnel involved

On 7 July, an administrative case was opened at the Shen Jia station of the Huang Shik City Public Security Department regarding the alleged beating of Zhao Fou.

On 21 August, the Yellowstone Public Security Department, the Yellowstone Port Division, found that the case met the criteria for criminal prosecution and decided to open an investigation.

On 29 September, the defender, Wu Xiao, apologized to Zhao Chiu and paid a criminal understanding of $91,000. According to the contents of the letter of understanding disclosed by the media, this amount does not include medical care, surgery and rehabilitation costs.

It is worth noting that Zhao Zifu made it clear that he understood only one of Wu and not others who were involved in his control.

He claims that another defender, Shaki, did not admit to the imposition of compulsory control, and that another person was never present. He calls on the persons concerned to be held accountable in accordance with the law and hopes that the school will clarify that he did not commit any offence on that day and that he will dispel any misunderstandings.

This means that the understanding reached on 29 September cannot be simply understood as the resolution of all disputes over the whole incident.

The school called "physical contact" and the students publicly contradicted

On the evening of 6 November, the Hubei Teacher Training University issued an information circular acknowledging that, during the course of the public security organs ' official duties at the school on 7 July, Zhao Hoe-Fuin had had physical contact with the staff of the School Protection Service during the filming of the work area, resulting in a far-reaching fracture of the fifth epoch of the right hand, which constituted a minor second degree of injury.

The school also indicated that after the incident, arrangements had been made for medical evacuation, notification of family members, advance payment of medical expenses and assistance in the identification of disability. The case has been referred to the prosecution for review and prosecution, and the school will wait for the judicial decision before the person concerned is dealt with in accordance with the law.

On 7 November, Zhao Jo Hoi Fu gave a poster press interview, expressing strong dissatisfaction with the briefing.

He notes that there was no cordon at the scene of the incident, that the persons concerned had not produced documents and that ordinary students had no idea what they were doing on the scene.

He found the description of “discourage” and “physical contact” used by the school to be manifestly inconsistent with the actual encounter at the scene.

The students ' challenge points to the most important factual controversy of the incident: Is the school defender maintaining order in normal order or is he overstepping his authority and imposing unnecessary coercive control over a student who has not committed violence?

School Protection Service is not a law enforcement agency and assistance in law enforcement cannot be a cause of harm

The Hubei Teacher Training University is the public undergraduate university of the province of Hubei. The School Protection Service, which is responsible for the security management of the campus, does not automatically acquire the statutory coercive powers of the police by virtue of assisting the public security service in the performance of its duties.

The actions that public security organs can take in the course of their duties in accordance with the law and with the school guards are two different legal issues.

Even if a legally mandated police mission exists on the ground, a distinction needs to be made between the imposition of a restricted area, the explicit notification of a prohibition on filming, whether the student in question is obstructing his or her official duties, and whether the physical control measures taken by the staff member on the ground are legally justified.

In particular, in this case, there were two levels of minor injuries identified by the judicial authorities and criminal proceedings initiated by the public security organs. Schools cannot dilute the behaviour of defenders into conflict management in ordinary schools simply by the expression “assisting public security in the performance of their duties” or “incurred physical contact”.

A photograph taken by a student should not be a reason for his or her being subjected to undue physical control and bodily harm.

(a) Criminal responsibility for the persons involved shall be established by the judicial authorities in accordance with the law; However, the recruitment, management, training and internal disciplinary oversight of the security personnel in schools are the responsibilities of the higher education institutions themselves.

Four months after the injury, school will continue to blame the court

From the events of 7 July to the criminal case opened on 21 August and the official school briefing of 6 November, the incident has lasted for almost four months.

During this period, school staff organize visits to the injured, advance medical expenses and promote understanding between some of the clients. However, medical assistance and criminal understanding cannot be a substitute for the school's investigation and accountability for its own management problems.

As of 6 November, the school had not publicly informed that the security guards had been suspended, transferred from their posts, that the head of the security services was held accountable internally and that an independent investigation had been conducted into the decision to impose compulsory control on the scene on that day.

The school made it clear that the persons concerned would be dealt with pending a decision by the judicial authorities. This approach effectively places the implementation of the responsibility for management within schools behind the criminal justice process.

The criminal justice solution is whether the person involved constitutes a crime and what legal liability is to be incurred; What is required of school management is to prevent its staff from abusing their managerial authority and protecting the safety of students. There is no substitute for each other.

According to the information that has been made public, the fracture of Zhao's right hand, the second degree of minor injury and the entry of the case into the criminal prosecution process of the student of the Hubei Teacher Training University have been confirmed by the school. At the same time, the students concerned are still openly opposing the statements of the school authorities regarding the history and scope of the conflict.

The security guards of a university controlled the students to fracture, and the school subsequently admitted the injury but did not simultaneously disclose the full internal responsibility. This incident exposed not only the behaviour of campus security personnel, but also the real risks that students may face in terms of their physical safety when the authority to manage institutions of higher learning is not effectively limited.