After the death of the husband and wife after the death of a drunk-driving chairman in Poyang Town, the dead were convicted: the review is not only proportional, but also the credibility of public power.

Drunk, excessive speed, not driving the lights at night – after three dangerous driving acts have been publicly confirmed by the police, two villagers who pushed a human vehicle across the road died; but in the initial accident determination, the dead were still identified to bear secondary responsibility. The traffic accident in Shandong Shandong County "8·13" has thus evolved from a drunk driving death case to a public questioning of the community of grassroots traffic law enforcement.

On the evening of September 12,The Public Security Bureau issued a report after public opinion concernIt is confirmed that the perpetrator of the crime was a staff member of the government of Zhejiang Town in Zhejiang County, with a blood alcohol content of 147.01 mg/100 ml, a road speed limit of 40 km/h, the actual speed of the vehicle is approximately 52 km/h, and the lights were not turned on at night.

An accident certificate that focuses the dispute on the four words “secondary responsibility”

The accident occurred at about 22 a.m. on the 13th of August, at the location of the country road 520 line Puy County section of 74km + 400M, Sheng Guomalu east exit. The police notified that the Du Mou driver collided with the couples of Zhang Mou, Guo Mou, who pushed the human vehicle to cross the road, and Guo Mou died on the spot, Zhang Mou was rescued and died ineffective.

The accident certificate issued by the Traffic Management Group of the Puan County Public Security Bureau on August 22 determined that Du Mou bears the main responsibility; Zhang Mou and Guo Mou bear secondary responsibility for violating the relevant provisions of Article 62 of the Road Traffic Safety Law.

Mr. Zhang, the son of the deceased, openly questionedThe accused vehicle is drunk, over speed, not lighting at night, in such a condition, why still require two dead pedestrians to take responsibility for the accident?

"It is clear that the other party is drunk driving and does not turn on the lights and driving too fast, why should I let my parents bear secondary responsibility for the accident?"

This does not require the public opinion instead of the police to redistribute the responsibility for the accident, but requires the review agency to answer a question that can be verified with evidence: the transit of two pedestrians has a causal effect on whether the accident actually occurred, and whether the original judgment fully assessed the impact of drunk driving, excess speed and not lighting on pedestrian observation and evasion.

*147.01mg/100ml, approximately 52 km/h, no light: the review must be based on causal responses

Public Accident Identification MaterialsThe blood sample of Du Mou detected ethanol content of 147.01 mg/100 ml; the vehicle identification speed was about 52.38 km / h, and the road section had a speed limit of 40 km / h mark.

These are not internet rumors, but have entered the police accident investigation and official notification.The core of the review of the traffic management team of the Public Security Bureau of the city of Yunnan should include on-site investigation, inspection identification, evidence materials and the basis for the original responsibility, especially to explain the causal weight between the three dangerous driving behaviors and the collision results.

The police have pledged that the review conclusions will be made public in a timely manner in accordance with the law. Since the dispute arises from a declaration of responsibility for public access to public discussion, the review results should not only give a new proportion, but should also illustrate how the evidence is directed.

The perpetrators are municipal government cadres, and therefore more public responsibility

New Yellow River was previously informed from the Shenzhen Municipal Government Office that Du Mou was an ordinary cadet of the municipal government; after the incident, the municipal government formed a coordination group to deal with the subsequent civil compensation communication.

Public office identity itself, of course, can not predeterminate the responsibility for an accident, nor can it prove that the department has given special care.But it is because the perpetrator served in the local government, and the initial responsibility is strongly questioned by the families of the deceased, public security organs must use a more transparent procedure than ordinary cases to eliminate the "identity affects handling" reasonable doubt.

There are at least three responsibilities that need to be promoted simultaneously:

1. Criminal liability line : drunk driving caused the death of two people, how the criminal case was investigated, and ultimately what kind of crime was transferred;
2. Accident review line : whether the original sub-responsibility division is clear, sufficient evidence, and the law is accurate;
3. Public official management line : where the incident occurred, with whom to drink, whether it involves official reception or work discipline, and how the unit is followed up.

At present, the public material does not prove the existence of public food and drinking or public drinking offices before the incident, so this can not be concluded first.But for a city government official who drowned and killed two people, to find out where to drink and with whom to drink is not a hunt, but to judge whether the incident is also involved in discipline and style responsibility.

From the family application for review to the interference of the supervisor, the real thing to fix is the trust of the procedure

The notice of the Puan County Public Security Bureau on September 12 clearly stated that the Traffic Management Branch of the Puan City Public Security Bureau has started a review, and will comprehensively review the site investigation, inspection and identification, evidence materials and the original responsibility basis.This means that the original accident is still in the legal correction procedure, and the final responsibility ratio should be determined by the review conclusion.

But social concerns have surpassed a percentage of the question: why the dead are still held responsible after a local government employee is seriously drunk and kills two people; how each of the facts previously identified is established; whether public office status has any impact on investigations, criminal treatment, and compensation negotiations – all these require answers that can be subjected to public verification.

If the review only changes a proportion of responsibility, but does not explain why the original determination was established or why it needs to be corrected, it is not sufficient to respond to this dispute. The public security organs in Puyuan have publicly promised that public officials who are suspected of violations of the law "do not protect, do not degrade, do not delay", the next measure of this phrase is not the wording of the notification, but the criminal case, accident review and the three lines of unit accountability finally left what kind of public record.