In the Xi'an subway security guard dragging female passenger incident, whose behavior violated the law?

To accurately determine who is right and who is wrong, and who acted illegally between the female passenger and the security guard, we need to accurately understand the relevant facts and investigate the causes and consequences of the scene. The Xi'an Municipal Traffic Management Department and others have been involved in the investigation, and it is believed that the results of the investigation will be notified to the public soon. The following is just my opinion based on the facts I have seen from the media.

The woman has violated the law.

Article 46 of the "Xi'an Urban Rail Transit Regulations" stipulates that the following behaviors that affect the order and safety of urban rail transit operations are prohibited: (1) Illegally intercepting trains; (2) Forcibly getting on and off trains; ( 3) Entering tracks, tunnels or other prohibited areas without authorization; (4) Climbing or crossing fences, guardrails, nets, platform doors, turnstiles, etc.; (5) Discarding items and placing obstacles on the tracks; (6) Flying kites, sky lanterns and other low-altitude floating objects within 100 meters on both sides of the ground section and elevated section of the operating line; (7) Filming film and television works or distributing items, advertising, and sales in urban rail transit facilities without authorization Non-operating activities; (8) Use roller shoes, skateboards, balance bikes, etc. to enter the station and ride on the bus; (9) Bring bicycles (except folded bicycles) and other means of transportation to the station and ride on the bus; (10) Carry inflatable balloons, It is prohibited to bring items with serious odor into the station or ride on the bus; (11) Bringing animals (except guide dogs carried by blind people) into the station or ride on the bus; (12) Playing or going backwards on the escalator in operation; (13) ) Playing and making loud noises in stations or carriages; (14) Staying, begging, performing, or picking up garbage in stations, carriages, or other urban rail transit facilities; (15) Other activities that affect the order and safety of urban rail transit operations behavior.

Article 47 stipulates that the following behaviors that affect the appearance and environmental sanitation of urban rail transit public facilities and hinder others from riding are prohibited: (1) Carving or graffiti on urban rail transit facilities , posting or hanging items without authorization; (2) Lying down or stepping on seats in stations or carriages; (3) Smoking, spitting, defecating, or littering in stations, carriages, or other urban rail transit facilities; ( 4) Eating and drinking in the carriage; (5) Other behaviors that affect the appearance of urban rail transit public facilities, environmental sanitation and hinder others from riding the train.

Although the existing video is not enough to reflect the full picture of the incident, especially the video without the cause of the conflict, passengers all avoided the woman, and one of the women even asked security to take her away from the subway. If it is true, as some netizens said, that the woman made loud phone calls, influenced others, did not admit her mistakes when others tried to dissuade her, and even had conflicts with others, then the woman's behavior violated Article 46 of the "Xi'an Urban Rail Transit Regulations" , Article 47, shall be punished accordingly.

2. Whether the security guard’s behavior is appropriate or not needs to be measured based on the nature and circumstances of the woman’s illegal behavior.

Article 29 of the "Security Management Service Regulations" stipulates that security guards should promptly stop illegal and criminal acts that occur within the service area, and should immediately call the police for illegal and criminal acts that are ineffective in stopping them, and at the same time take measures to protect them. on site.

So, what is restraint? The restraint is limited to verbal dissuasion. Can certain coercive actions be taken? Worth exploring.

Whether the security guard dragged the woman out of the subway was an act to stop illegal behavior should be measured according to the principle of proportionality. Specifically, it needs to be considered whether the woman's behavior affects the normal operation of the subway and whether it affects other passengers' riding, whether the woman's behavior is ineffective in dissuading the elderly, whether the woman's request for the elderly to add WeChat and compensation is unreasonable, and whether there is no other choice but to drag her out of the subway. There is no better choice outside of trains.

Only by comprehensively considering the seriousness of the woman's illegal behavior can we determine whether the security guard's behavior falls within the scope of stopping illegal behavior and whether it falls within a reasonable range based on the principle of proportionality.

3. As for someone disclosing surveillance video online, the impact caused by the widespread broadcast of the video should be borne by the person who disclosed the video, and the security guard does not need to bear responsibility.

The surveillance video of the subway company is to safeguard the safety of the public. The case handling unit can obtain it in accordance with the law. The woman can also watch it with the consent of the subway company and the approval of the public security agency, but in principle it is not allowed to Public Disclosure. The on-site video shows that when the security guard dragged the woman out, the action of dragging her out caused the exposure of some parts of the woman's body. There was no other bad intention, and the time was very short, and the number of people who saw it was limited.

However, after someone disclosed the video online, it became widely known and expanded the scope of dissemination. The consequences should be borne by the person who disclosed the video. If the security guard's behavior is indeed inappropriate, the impact caused by the video dissemination should not be borne by the security guard.

When security guards deal with emergencies, they need to deal with them on the fly. I think that as long as it does not obviously exceed the necessary limit, it should not be considered an illegal act. Otherwise, it will be a blow to security guards to maintain public safety and public safety. *The enthusiasm for order is not conducive to the maintenance of normal social order.