By reporter Wang Weijian: In November 2011, the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City returned a bizarre criminal case to the Changshu City People's Court for retrial due to "unclear facts and insufficient evidence." The local authorities responded that the case was currently under further investigation, and the date for the retrial hearing was yet to be determined.
On April 2nd of last year, 24 unidentified individuals armed with machetes broke into the office of Zhongfa Investment Company in Changshu City (hereinafter referred to as "Zhongfa Company"). Six employees, including He Qiang, managed to drive them out. Six days later, these six employees were criminally detained by the Changshu police on suspicion of "mass brawl," and subsequently sentenced to three years in prison by the Changshu City People's Court.
The company's surveillance cameras recorded the incident: at 12:45 PM, a group of men led by a "bald man" stormed into the office. There were six employees present in the office at the time, including Zhang Sheng and He Qiang, all from Hunan Province. One of the intruders immediately put a knife to Zhang Sheng's neck upon entering, while a bespectacled man punched He Qiang to the ground.
Subsequently, the scene became chaotic as both sides engaged in a frenzied fight. He Qiang and four others pulled out kitchen knives to defend themselves, while the other two grabbed office items to throw at the intruders. Within two minutes, the group led by the "bald man" was forced out of the office.
At 12:47 PM, the group carrying knives descended the stairs and left one after another. The female secretary, Xiao Zhang, who had been hiding under a table, then called both the company boss and the police.
Six days later, after finishing their statements at the Chengbei Police Station in Changshu City, He Qiang and others were criminally detained. The police believed they had prepared knives beforehand and participated in the "brawl." Four months later, the Changshu City People's Court ruled that five of them were guilty of "armed mass brawl" and sentenced each to three years in prison.
This first-instance verdict came as a surprise to He Qiang and others. According to their account, prior to the incident, He Qiang had received a phone call, which prompted him to prepare the knives.
According to He Qiang and others' description, on the morning of April 2nd, He Qiang represented the boss of Zhongfa Company, Xu Jianzhong, in negotiations with the opposing party regarding a debt dispute, but no agreement was reached. At noon, he received a call ending with "7777," asking where he was. He said he was at No. 8 Yongjiang Road, and the caller said, "Just wait, I'm coming."
Worried that something might happen to the company, He Qiang called his colleague Zhang Sheng, asking him and their fellow Hunan natives living together to come to the company. After Zhang Sheng and five others arrived, He Qiang told them that someone might come to cause trouble. He Qiang said, "If they come to talk, we don't need to conflict with them. But if they start trouble and fight, we have prepared knives so we won't be at a disadvantage."
In the first-instance ruling by the Changshu City People's Court, it was determined that He Qiang knew the other side would come to cause trouble and that a possible brawl could occur. He gathered Chen Qiang, Zhang Sheng, and others to the potential fight location and prepared fighting tools, which met the criteria for preparatory acts of mass brawl. With more than ten people involved in the brawl and multiple participants armed, resulting in significant damage to Zhongfa Company property and minor injuries to He Qiang, this severely disrupted normal social order, qualifying as an armed mass brawl.
Regarding the defense attorney's argument of "justifiable self-defense," the court ruled that both sides intended to infringe upon each other, making no distinction between defender and aggressor. Therefore, He Qiang and others did not qualify for justifiable self-defense.
In November 2011, the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court returned the case to the Changshu City People's Court for retrial due to "unclear facts and insufficient evidence." From the perspective of He Qiang's family, the "unclear facts" also included the absence of confessions from the opposing side. Among the 24 individuals involved in the "mass brawl," none were arrested at the time of sentencing.
Facing violent attacks, citizens are encouraged to reasonably resist. The focus of this case lies in whether preparing for a possible attack without reporting or fleeing, and gathering several people to prepare for "defense," excludes justifiable self-defense. Legal scholars and practitioners believe that such actions cannot be categorically excluded.
Even when anticipating potential attacks and taking preemptive measures, there is still room for justifiable self-defense. The key lies in whether the measures taken exceed reasonable bounds. In this case, the defendants did not overstep reasonable limits and can still claim justifiable self-defense.
The defendants, upon sensing a threat, prepared in their own office, demonstrating a need to protect both the office and personal safety. This precautionary measure caused minimal harm to others and society, staying within socially tolerable limits.
Legal systems prohibit private violence ("private brawls") while simultaneously granting citizens the right to defend themselves through violence. The balance lies in "imminence." Thus, calling the police or avoiding confrontation is the best course of action. Although the defendants did not report or avoid the situation and instead sought help from fellow countrymen to "defend," this decision was flawed but not overly harsh. Society should encourage reasonable resistance against violent attacks, which helps maintain social order and justice.
The reasoning behind the first-instance conviction seems superficial. The defendants had a legitimate need to protect the office and their own safety, and their gathering of people and preparation of tools did not exceed this need. How can it be concluded that they lacked defensive intent? The first-instance judgment also lacks fairness from the perspective of ordinary people. It was later proven that He Qiang and others' resistance stopped the other side's violent behavior, benefiting society.
Professor Ruan Qilin, Criminal Justice Institute, China University of Political Science and Law
When faced with passive attacks, it does not constitute a mass brawl.
From a legal theory perspective, inviting multiple people to prepare weapons for self-defense against anticipated harm from the other side may potentially constitute the crime of mass brawl.
From a judicial practice perspective, whether it constitutes a mass brawl or justifiable self-defense must be comprehensively judged based on specific subsequent actions. In practice, a person's intentions for self-defense and fighting may coexist or transform into each other. It cannot be solely determined that the act constitutes a crime based on the initial invitation of multiple people to prepare weapons. If there are no subsequent actions following the initial invitation, it does not possess criminal penalties.
From a specific case analysis, since the crime of mass brawl originated from the original hooliganism charge, the subjective intent is often based on negative motives. If indeed the party passively uses the prepared weapons in response to being attacked by the other side, as long as there is no provocation for defense, it should not be classified as a mass brawl.
Based on the principle of presumption of innocence, even if the perpetrator has both defensive and mutual combat thoughts, in the absence of sufficient evidence to exclude the possibility of justifiable self-defense, the perpetrator should not be convicted of a crime. The judgment of the perpetrator's subjective intent must be handled with utmost caution.
Committee Member and Deputy Secretary-General of the Criminal Law Professional Committee of the Beijing Municipal Lawyers Association, Liu Bo
Preparing knives for defense shows impure defensive motivation.
The reason why the first-instance judgment determined that He Qiang and others did not belong to justifiable self-defense may be based on two points:
Firstly, the lack of defensive purpose. The purpose of justifiable self-defense is to prevent illegal infringement on national, public interests, oneself, or others' personal, property, and other rights. However, in this case, He Qiang and others knowingly remained actively "prepared" despite knowing that others might come to cause trouble. Such behavior poses a hazard to society. If they had reported it to the police, the consequences of people getting injured and property being damaged could have been avoided. From the video footage, the windows of Zhongfa Company's office could clearly see the "bald man" and others holding knives and gathering to provoke trouble. At this point, He Qiang and others should have blocked the door and immediately reported it to the police. The proactive "preparedness" mindset of He Qiang carries the nature of seeking dominance and victory, not purely protecting national, collective, or others' personal, property, and other rights from illegal infringement.
Secondly, inappropriate timing of defense. Defense should occur when illegal infringement is actually happening, possessing urgency. In this case, He Qiang and others directly "fought back" under circumstances where conflicts could have been avoided, failing to meet the conditions for justifiable self-defense.
In this case, if the thugs suddenly rushed in and started slashing indiscriminately, He Qiang grabbing a kitchen knife from the company's kitchen to subdue or even kill the assailants would all fall under justifiable self-defense. However, preparing knives in the workplace and organizing personnel to wait for the attackers to show up clearly does not qualify as justifiable self-defense. Proper purpose, timely defense, and appropriate degree are the essence of justifiable self-defense.
Unclear facts in this case may lie in what kind of conflict led to both sides resorting to knives at the slightest disagreement. If the conflict was significant, the likelihood of a brawl would be higher. If only a small matter resulted in a group of people armed with knives showing up uninvited to cause trouble, then He Qiang and others would have a defensive nature.
Deputy Director and Secretary-General of the Zhejiang Provincial Lawyers Association Criminal Business Committee, Chairman of Zhejiang Jinglin Law Firm, Xu Zongxin
[Link]
According to Chinese criminal law, the recognition of justifiable self-defense must satisfy five elements: 1. There is an actual unlawful infringement; 2. Unlawful infringement must be ongoing; 3. The purpose of defense is to protect national, public interests, oneself, or others' personal, property, and other rights from unlawful infringement; 4. Defensive actions must be targeted at the unlawful infringer; 5. Defensive actions do not obviously exceed necessary limits.