"There are five constituent elements for self-defense: first, a violent crime; second, the crime is ongoing; third, the purpose of exercising the right is for defense; fourth, the target is also a wedding hazer engaged in violent crime; and fifth, our client is also one of the victims facing violent crime."

This point was something Qin Mu had specifically discussed with him. It concerned the interpretation of the constituent elements of the right to unlimited self-defense in criminal law. From this viewpoint, the right to unlimited self-defense met the constituent elements and should be established.

"Second," Zhang Wei continued, presenting his defense argument, "the actions of the group of wedding hazers constitute a severe violent crime. At the scene of the wedding hazing, they disregarded the personal wishes of the bridesmaids by pushing, tearing at their clothes, and groping them, severely violating their personal freedom and human dignity. According to the legislative principles of the right to unlimited self-defense in criminal law, this right necessitates the protection of an individual's personal safety—meaning life, health, sexual rights, and so on. And under those circumstances, our client's human dignity and sexual rights were both severely violated. Imagine, a few young women facing the lecherous hands, violent shoving, and clothes-tearing of a dozen young men—how helpless must they have felt to resort to such means of self-defense? The opposing party's behavior constituted violent crime, and our client's act of self-defense was not in any way illegal or noncompliant. It was also in accordance with the legislative principles of criminal law regarding the right to unlimited self-defense!"

Zhang Wei's voice was forceful and resolute as he continued to elaborate on the right to unlimited self-defense, attempting to validate his side's legitimacy from various perspectives.

To secure an acquittal in this case, it was imperative to achieve recognition for the lawful exercise of the right to unlimited self-defense.

As for the legislative principles concerning the right to unlimited self-defense, it was established from its inception to protect the personal rights of the vulnerable from infringement. These personal rights are limited to the person, not extending to property rights, reputation rights, etc. In other words, one cannot exercise the right to unlimited self-defense in cases of insults, humiliation, slander, and so on. Even when encountering a thief, one cannot kill the thief if they have not endangered personal safety. These situations do not fall under the right to unlimited self-defense. The right to unlimited self-defense protects only an individual's personal safety. And in this case, the personal safety of the bridesmaids was severely jeopardized; that is beyond doubt.

"Third," Zhang Wei went on, "looking at the history of the right to unlimited self-defense, this civil right has ancient origins. In ancient times, unlimited self-defense was initially established to protect citizens' property rights from infringement. In Ancient Rome, the Law of the Twelve Tables, specifically Table Eight, Section Twelve, stipulated: 'If a thief is killed while stealing at night (on the spot), then killing him is considered lawful.' Our nation's 'Rites of Zhou: Autumn Officials: Court Gentlemen' provided that: 'For thieves who commit theft in the army, township, or personal households, killing them is not a crime.' This means that those who steal or kill within the military, a township, or a home could be killed without it being considered a crime. The 'Tang Code Commentary' also specified: 'Anyone who enters another's home at night without reason shall be punished with forty lashes; if the homeowner kills the intruder immediately, the homeowner is not guilty.'"

Following this, Zhang Wei continued to present his defense argument, using materials prepared by Qin Mu. It touched upon the basic legislative principles from ancient times to the present.

"Since ancient times," Zhang Wei stated, "the right to unlimited self-defense has existed. In the past, when it came to criminals, anyone could act to uphold justice by subduing them, even fatally, and the officials would grant corresponding rewards. Initially focused on property, it gradually evolved into the protection of personal safety we see today. Civilization evolves, and the shift from protecting property to protecting personal safety reflects the progressive nature of the law."

"However..." Zhang Wei straightened up, his chest out, looked at the prosecutor, and said solemnly, "but today, the right to unlimited self-defense has become mere empty words on paper! An article written into the criminal code, which should be effective, is seldom used to protect victims' personal safety. It exists in name only! Consider judicial cases from the past twenty years: most similar cases were judged as excessive self-defense. The most famous of these is the Deng Yujiao case. In that instance, the collegiate bench pronounced in court that Deng Yujiao's actions constituted intentional injury but were deemed excessive self-defense. Furthermore, because Deng Yujiao had diminished criminal responsibility and had turned herself in, she was exempted from punishment."

Zhang Wei took another deep breath and brought up the famous case from over a decade ago. Deng Yujiao was an employee at a bath center. One day, Huang Dezhi and Deng Guida coercively demanded she accompany them for a bath. She refused. Subsequently, she suffered unlawful assaults including being pulled, shoved, and verbally insulted. In response, she used a knife, stabbing Deng Guida to death and injuring Huang Dezhi. As a result, she was prosecuted by the Procuratorate for excessive self-defense.

In response to this case, Deng Yujiao's defense attorney also centered their argument on the right to unlimited self-defense, vigorously defending her. Her attorney consistently maintained that Deng Yujiao's actions fell within the legally permitted limits of unlimited self-defense and did not constitute excessive defense.

But in the end, after reviewing the case, the local court still delivered a verdict of excessive self-defense.

If you find any errors ( broken links, non-standard content, etc.. ), Please let us know < report chapter > so we can fix it as soon as possible.