From the Zhang case to the Kiqingang case: the rule of self-defence needs to be unified.

Wen Zoron.

The same is true of the break-in of homes, the same is true of the sudden encounter of armed violence and the same is true of the desperate situation that led to the deaths of the aggressors.

One in Shaanxi, and one in Chang Qun, In Shandong, the Ki Gyeong River.

This is a commentary on the rule of law, which is being discussed around the rules of due defence and rules of procedure.

The facts of the case of Jiqing Jiang in the Chinese media are reported by the family and defence, and by the news media, including Jin Yun; The fact of Chang's case is reported publicly on the Internet, on the cover, etc. The characterization and the facts of the case are ultimately governed by the instruments in force for the judiciary.

Shandong is located in the village of the Grand Master of Spring Springs.

On 3 April 2025, the night before dawn, the spring and cold were darkened. Ki Gyeongjiang and his wife Sun Hongjin have taken early breaks. The cattle were slowly retrograded, and the season was just sprouts, a raisin and an old earth wall, which surrounded the days of peace and security for the late sixs.

They did not expect that, in a few hours, the calm would be shattered by violence. The controversy over whether to defend itself would hold the fate of the farmer in question hostage to the word "intentional killing".

I. Night break: First wave

At about 9:20 p.m., a voice came out of the wall.

According to public reports, the neighbour, Jiji, with his stepfather, was holding a sling and at once smashed the walls and doors of the Kishi family. The scolding broke through the earth wall and lasted for 10 minutes.

The two were awakened, afraid to open the door, and to hide on the roof of the flat, and remained untouched. The curses were stopped, and they thought they were gone. The Kiyotung River is not free of cattle fields — it's the livelihood of the whole family. He took his light, called his wife, and went to the cattle field in black.

II. The cattle farm door: Wave two

Just got to the cattle farm, and the dark came out.

The handles were first thrown at Sun Hong-jin, and she fell down. The stick was then taken from the Kiyoshi tribe. The 60-year-old Gigang raised his left arm and his arm broke. According to the family and the defence, the old two had to die and had taken the handle. A certain people then bit Sun Hongjin's finger and bit his bones before turning around.

Giong River shivering and calling the police and contacting the village's books for help.

Three, four minutes: Wave three, and last

About four minutes after the police called, a certain citizen returned. This time, he was carrying a bone-scratch knife and stabbed in the middle of the Qinghong River.

From the police to the next deadly weapon, it's only four minutes.

The Giqing River responded with a wreathed handle. After several confrontations, a certain people fell and died instantly. According to the family and the defence, the last four minutes were recorded in full by surveillance outside the cattle farm.

IV. Swaying charges

On 4 April 2025, Ki Gyeongjiang was detained for intentional assault.

Two weeks later, the charge of arrest was changed to intentional homicide.

In November 2025, the notice was held for the offence of intentional injury, which was postponed. In April 2026, the case was changed from intentional homicide to a pre-trial meeting.

On 7 July 2026, the family received a summons and was scheduled to sit at first instance on 17 July. On 16 July, the first night of the hearing was postponed to a fourth pre-court meeting. The defence counsel challenged jurisdiction: the charge of intentional homicide, which was punishable by death for an indefinite period, was, according to law, subject to the court of first instance in the court of the court of the prefecture of Luennan. The presiding judge orally dismissed the decision, without giving a written decision.

On 21 August 2026, the fifth pre-court meeting was still not officially held.

Intentional injury, intentional killing, swinging back and forth.

The biggest differences that have prevailed have been on the same issue: Qiqingang's response will establish a legitimate defence.

The key focus of the contest is whether the attack, which was fought back by a certain people, remains real and imminent, and whether the follow-up is still within the time frame of defence. The logic of the defence is that the twilight turns into a scrawl and the scrawl of the sword, and the aggression continues to escalate, and the four minutes should be legally assessed as "an ongoing process of unlawful conduct", rather than two sections that have been cut off.

The question of procedure: jurisdictional objections, may not take the form of an optional

(a) The defence based its jurisdictional challenge on the fact that article 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the intermediate court shall be competent in criminal cases of first instance, which may be sentenced to life imprisonment and death; Article 17 of the Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that cases where the death penalty may be imposed for an indefinite period of time shall be referred to the lower court.

It needs to be clarified whether the "possible life sentence, death penalty" is not based solely on a direct finding of the charge of prosecution, but on a comprehensive court-of-fact judgement; However, at the stage of case-making and jurisdictional review, the initial benchmark is usually the prosecution of the alleged charges and the facts. The logic of the defence's objection is thus not complicated

• if there is a possibility that a serious sentence will be imposed, the first instance jurisdiction should be taken seriously and a written decision should be issued, not an oral dismissal.

The program is not decorating. It's the line of defence against error.

6 and 20 were awakened long ago

• Chang Chang is the most recent reference

Article 20, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code: The defence of an offence involving the commission of an offence involving murder, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping or other violent acts which seriously endanger the safety of the person, resulting in the injury or injury of an unlawful person, is not an excessive defence and is not criminally liable.

Over the years, this provision landed in a case

Over the years, this clause landed in a case

In the case of Yu Jian, the first instance was held in a state of inactivity, and the second trial found that the defence had been in a state of remission for five years in the face of unlawful detention and humiliation. The Kunshan counter-kill was countered by Heming, who for five days was found to have withdrawn in self-defence. In the case of the Sing-won Counter-Kill, the Wang and Zing Won-won were able to counter the perpetrators of the Wall-Backing, and the prosecution found that they were not prosecuted for self-defence. The Zhao Woo, Sing Chunping, Dong Min-gang, Tang Shek "The law cannot give in to the wrong" has been changed from line to sentence.

The most recent, very informative, entry into force judgement is the case of Chang Zhang.

Early in the morning of 1 April 2023, the village of the new district of Siam.

More than 10 people broke the door without legal formalities, driving a shredder, and broke into Chang's house with a fork and rubber stick. His father and son Zhang responded with their own spears in the dark house, with great power, killing and wounding three people. The prosecution filed an indictment for "intentional injury (exalt) ". On 7 August 2026, the Qindu District Court of Xianyang found in first instance that Chang was a legitimate defence and had not clearly exceeded the necessary limits, and acquitted ; The 2.6 million civil claims of the deceased ' s family were rejected. The judgement came into effect on 18 August.

The Court ' s statement deserves to be remembered by every case officer: "It is neither realistic nor objective to require that a person should exercise precision in his or her defence in a state of emergency characterized by a bleak light and a great deal of power. "..

It should be noted that the causes of the violations are not the same: the Shang case originated in the rape and the Singnan case arose in a neighbourhood dispute.

But in the central scene of defence evaluation, "Improper intrusion into the home of others, armed approach, real threat to life", the two cases are highly homogeneous. Our case law is not one in which the Zhang case is not directly bound by the case, but it clearly shows the inclusive scale of the current judicial fear of defenders — the scale should be uniform.

Seven or two seniors have a hard-worded saying, "No one gets killed or injured and no one gets hurt."

"Guidance on the Legal Application of the Self-Defence Regime" 2020

"Guidance on the Legal Application of the Self-Defence Regime" for 2020

To prevent the wrong practice of "who can make a sound sense" and to defend firmly the rule of law that "law cannot give in to wrongs". The urgency and tension of the defence when faced with unlawful aggression must be taken into account, and the latter should not be judged after the fact by reasonable and objective and precise criteria, which are normally the case.

Two more specific sentences are included in the guidance: first, "As regards the present and imminent risk of wrongful acts, they should be considered to have begun"; Second, the defence should be judged in its entirety, "on the basis of the specific circumstances in which the defence was being defended", rather than cutting and demanding a single battle.

(a) The case against Nam: the assault ranged from a break-in on the door and a snail to an escalation of the scrawny-scratch layer; The counterattack took place in a skirmished battle, and was stressful, not design. Even in its integrity, surveillance cannot be isolated to characterize "the last few downs after the fall" — the fall of the aggressor does not mean that the threat disappears in a moment. The six-time old man, under the shadow of a bone-scratching knife, has no obligation to be cool and to judge the other side's ability to attack.

. The right to self-defence is restricted and more terrible than grievances

Preliminary conclusions

First conclusion

The consequences of the restriction of the right to self-defence and its disregard are more serious than any false claims.

Why?

The false and false cases were one person and one family. But it has a path to correct — re-examination, complaints, State compensation, public opinion oversight. There's a consensus in society that "it's wrong" and that the redress mechanism is working.

Once the right to self-defence is substantially curtailed, it is not the justice of a particular case that destroys it, but the attitude of society as a whole in the face of the violation.

The implication it conveys is extremely dangerous: do not resist. You're facing a knife break-in. You're waiting for the police. But what about the four minutes the police didn't have time for? In those four minutes, you stood up and you were stabbed because once you fought back, you were the defendant in the murder.

After the grievance occurred, it was said that it was wrong and that it was right. When self-defence was ignored, they said, "No, do not resist, it is worse."

The former is a source of anger and prejudice. The latter led to silence and retreat.

When law-abiding citizens are afraid to respond to deadly violence in their own homes, it is not good that the law is protected, but violence itself. It tells every potential perpetrator that you can't move with a knife and a knife; He moves, he goes to jail. This amounts to the confinement of ordinary people in a cage that passively suffers from aggression, the handing of the key to the wrong-doer.

The Chang Chang case has just been declared "resisting" by the ruling in force; If the Gwangnan case is going backwards, it's the same summer, with another sentence, to tell the whole community "Don't fight back."

Worse than a grievance, it is not an innocent person who is in prison, but millions of innocent people who are afraid to protect themselves at the moment of danger.

Nine, what are we waiting for?

The Luennan case is more than the fate of a person in Kiyoang.

If the defence is established and he is cleared, it is not only an old man who is protected, but also an ordinary man who defends himself. Ask yourself: If it's your door, the thug with the knife, the police are on their way after the police call -- dare you fight back?

If the law does not provide a positive answer, the scrawl is hanging over everyone.

"The law cannot give in to the wrong" and is to be found in the written decision on the jurisdictional challenge, in the judicial judgment of the trial on the complete restoration of the defence scene and in the context of an urgent situation.

One of the most important functions of the criminal law is not to send a counter-attacker to prison, but to tell everyone in the moment of violence:

You have the right to live, to protect yourself and to hold your home.

Lighting up "Looking"

Let the self-defense light not go out this late night in Luenan.