Is it self-defense to strike back after picking fights?

Regarding your question, I will give you an answer in combination with the law and real life: justifiable defense is strictly limited, and you may have been suspected of violating the law and committing crimes by using violence on the grounds of justifiable defense.

According to the injury, the legal nature that may be involved is as follows:

(1) For any party, the damage is slight (excluding) or less.

First, it is suspected of violating the Public Security Administration Punishment Law. If the other party doesn't have any reason, I will call you as soon as I come up, and you will call back decisively. This is a typical behavior of the other party looking for trouble. It is legally supported for you to call back, but when you call, you must control the injury and take the initiative to call the police. Legally, this article can be understood as turning it over to the police station. This law is mainly aimed at strangers, mainly street hooligans and drunken people.

The second is the act of beating others suspected of violating the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment. If the other party hits you, you fight back after a conflict with you. If the injury of either party does not meet the standards of criminal cases, it is generally treated as beating others. Both you and the other party are illegal and must be dealt with.

The third is the crime of intentional injury to others suspected of violating the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment. This is the same as the second point, because the other party hit you and you hit back, and the injury does not meet the standards of criminal cases. The difference between the two is whether to use equipment! If the equipment is used to hurt others' bodies, if there is a simple physical conflict, it belongs to beating others.

(2) For any party, the injury is a minor injury (inclusive) or more.

First, it is suspected of seeking trouble. If the other party hits you for no reason, you strike back, and your injury has reached more than minor injuries (inclusive), and the other party is suspected of provoking trouble. What awaits him is legal and criminal punishment.

The second is the crime of suspected intentional injury to others. If there is a conflict between you and the other party due to civil disputes or other legal reasons, and the other party hits you, you fight back. Whoever constitutes minor injuries (including) advocates rights protection, and the other party is suspected of intentionally hurting others' bodies, and needs to bear criminal and civil responsibilities.

The third is self-defense. If the other party hits you and you fight back, it will involve self-defense, which is unnecessary or the criminal punishment is lighter, but the definition is stricter. It will be introduced in detail below.

In short, if the other party hits you and you fight back, you can sit in your seat accordingly for the legal problems that may be involved.

In fact, if the other party infringes on your personal rights, you can defend your rights through legal channels. The law does not support callback. What you call back is a violation of the other party's personal rights and interests. It is a typical act of fighting violence with violence, which may be illegal or even criminal.

Focus, the concept of self-defense is put forward in the criminal law. Self-defense only involves criminal cases.

Self-defense must meet the following five conditions:

First, there are injuries. This sentence is easy to understand. Only when the other party hurts you can you consider self-defense. The reason for this rule is to prevent imaginary crimes, because some people will imagine others trying to hurt me, and I must defend myself.

Second, the injury behavior is happening. This article is also easy to understand. When the other party is hurting you, you take self-defense action. The reason for this rule is to prevent you from retaliating. After the other party has hurt you, you are fully prepared for revenge.

Third, it cannot exceed a certain limit. This article can be understood as follows: the other party has hurt your health, and you can't kill the other party with this excuse. Subjectively, you are not defending rights, but trying to kill people, which is a criminal act.

The fourth is for the injured themselves. This article clearly requires you to defend yourself in self-defense, only against the other party who hurts you, and you can't harm the other party's family or other legitimate rights and interests under the guise of self-defense.

Fifth, it must be aimed at stopping illegal infringement. The meaning of this article is to tell you that if the other party hurts you, you just need to let the other party stop the infringement. You can't fight to the death when you know that the other party has lost the ability to invade and you don't stop it. This is forbidden by law, and you are likely to become a victim from a victim.

In short, the legal provisions of self-defense are like this. When fighting back, we must strictly control it within this range.

In fact, in real life, the definition of self-defense is more difficult. Because in the court trial, you must strictly follow the above five points of evidence to prove that you are self-defense, but it is not easy to collect these evidences. In general, without lawyers, it is difficult for you to prove them.

In most cases, when the other party hits you and you fight back, it is generally a physical conflict, and it is difficult to achieve more than minor injuries (including). We all deal with public security cases, that is, mediation first, and then fines or detention if mediation fails.

In real life, if you meet the five requirements of self-defense, especially if the other party uses a murder weapon, you must resolutely defend yourself, which is supported by law. Of course, the premise is to protect yourself. At the same time, we must do a good job in collecting evidence, because the evidence chain in this area is too important.

My personal suggestion is that when the other party hits you, it constitutes the five elements of self-defense, and you should give priority to avoiding and protecting yourself. When you can't escape, be decisive and defend yourself.

I'm @ 丯丯丯丯丯丯. In fact, many cases are considered as self-defense, but in the end, due to incomplete evidence, it cannot be handled as self-defense. I hope everyone can understand this. After all, the law speaks with evidence. Without evidence, self-defense is likely to give criminals an opportunity.

In addition, if you don't understand anything, you can ask me in the comments section, and I will definitely give you an answer from a legal perspective. Why emphasize the legal point of view, because the law is aimed at specific cases, involving more detailed and broader content, and it is likely to undergo qualitative changes.

If someone hits you, you fight back. If the police think it's a fight, it's not self-defense!

Self-defense is when someone holds a knife at you so viciously that they chase and chop at the same time. When you are cornered, he won't let you go, so you have to die quickly. You can only protect yourself from being stabbed by him, and self-defense is born.

When someone hits you, they don't have a knife, they just hit you with their fists. Don't run or hide, just pester him and fight back. Both sides were injured, and that's how the fighting happened.

If someone hits you, you don't fight him. You can hide if you can, and you'd better run as far as possible. If he can't find you, what can he call? But you refuse to accept the tone of "an eye for an eye". Once both sides are black and blue, how can the police determine that this is "legitimate defense"? Finally, they were all arrested for fighting!

I have seen such a story before: the teacher called the father of the child to school and said: Your son hit someone. The father of the child replied: The other party hit my son first. The teacher said: it's someone else's fault that others hit first, and it's your son's fault that your son hit back. After hearing this, the father slapped the teacher and the teacher hit back. The child's father said: it is wrong for me to hit you first, and it is wrong for you to fight back.

I always thought it was a joke, but now I realize it's a fact [cover your face] [cover your face] [cover your face]

It's a legal decision whether to defend yourself properly or not, but it's my decision if I don't fight back. So, when someone hits me, I will bravely fight back. Because people with backbone will never bow to evil forces.

Many people are saying that if someone hits me, I will fight back. Am I defending myself? I can tell you clearly, no, not that it must not be. It can only be said that there is a legal definition of the consequences caused by others hitting you and the consequences caused by you fighting back.

Let's talk about various situations in detail. First of all, people hitting you can't cause you serious harm. This can only be regarded as personal injury. At this time, you can only prevent others from causing personal injury to you. If you fight back, it may be legally defined as a fight. But at that time, there was no question of self-defense.

A more legitimate explanation is that two people are making trouble in the street. The second situation is that others hit you hard and will do you harm. The key to evaluating your personal defense is whether you can stop others from invading you. You are trying to prevent others from getting hurt, otherwise it is called excessive defense.

Or it may be possible to directly confirm that you two are fighting at the scene when some police without legal thinking are handling the case. Or directly judge that you have caused harm to the other party, so as to compensate the other party. In fact, this is very police. At that time, it was only responsible for handling cases, judging cases on the spot and hearing cases. In our society, how many cases are directly based on the police record, which directly determines the responsibility and contact person of the responsible person. The court also directly accepts the letter, and the process of going or not is the same.

The other is that the other party hits you, causing serious personal injury and even personal safety. Under the existing legal system, you can only fight back to stop others from hurting you, but what does it mean to stop others from hurting you seriously? If the other person wants to kill you, or cause you serious injury, it seems that you only have one chance to seriously hurt the other person, because the premise is that you have been seriously injured, seriously injured.

If you can continue to compete with him, and you still have the ability, it is possible to prevent others from seriously injuring you, but if you are seriously injured and dying, the only way to resist is to defeat the enemy with one blow. You can't stop others from hurting you at the last blow, which means that your life is a confession. Therefore, in this critical situation, whether the huge damage caused by your counterattack to others is excessive defense is ok in the shameless society of the past, and you have to pay a painful price and responsibility. But now, at least, this society is advancing, a little more civilized than the barbarism of the past. In this special case, it is not excessive defense, but legitimate defense.

As a country without legal system, there is also a key factor in self-defense, that is, whether public opinion can be controlled on its own side. Many cases are big things, small things, and special cases of public opinion. Therefore, in addition to the case itself, the defendant and the plaintiff are problems between the offender and the victim, the intervention of the court and the police, and the role of public opinion. As long as public opinion intervenes in the case and makes it public, it will tend to the former victims to a certain extent, rather than confusing the official case. Of course, you missed. Why are you helping? No one will live if they meet such a judge!

Hello, I'm Guo Feng.

If there is a video to prove it, it is purely under the legal framework. Someone hits you first, you fight back immediately. It's a fight, but the other party's legal responsibility is greater than yours, because the fight was started by himself. According to their injuries, a civil settlement and compensation can be reached.

But there are exceptions to everything. The same scene, the other party hit you first, you didn't fight back, but you backed off. At this time, the other party is chasing you. "If that's the case, didn't we say that it was repeated twice and not three times in ancient times? > now you come again.

Counterattack is self-defense. You are completely irresponsible. Of course, according to the degree of injury of both parties, the division of civil liability still needs to bear a little, but the degree of burden is very small.

The definition of legitimate defense in law is: the behavior taken by the person who is committing unlawful infringement to stop unlawful infringement, which causes damage to the unlawful infringer, belongs to legitimate defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. Self-defense is the unity of purpose legitimacy and behavior defense.

Therefore, as long as you have no intention of hurting the other party and stop the other party's infringement (including infringement on you or a third party), it belongs to legitimate defense. When others hit you, you resist for the purpose of defending your own safety, just in self-defense. You can't endanger others' lives unless others endanger yours. Otherwise, it is easy to be convicted of fighting or excessive defense. Also bear legal responsibility!

According to the police and judges, in layman's terms, if someone hits you, you should call the police first. When there is no condition to call the police or run away, you should first let the other person get hurt to a certain extent, and prove that the other person has threatened your life. You can only fight back if you are injured by the other side, and you should be as measured as a martial arts master. You can't continue to attack the other person after stopping his illegal infringement. This is considered as self-defense, otherwise it is considered as excessive defense and will be punished by law.

According to the current law, it is not self-defense. If someone slaps you in the face, you will fight back immediately. If you scuffle together, you will be beaten, and if you violate the regulations on public security, you will be punished. The correct way is to run to the side immediately after being beaten and take out your mobile phone to call the police. After calling the police, catch up with the person who hit you and don't let him go. In order to get rid of you, he may hit you again, but you still fight hard. If he strikes hard and starts to fight back when you think he's going to kill you, that's legitimate self-defense. If you accidentally hurt him in the process of defense, there is no monitoring at the scene and no passers-by to testify for you. Although you called the police, the police couldn't prove that you fought back when he tried to kill you. This situation is still not self-defense. You still have to bear the legal consequences. It is possible to spend money to treat the injured and finally be detained and sentenced. So I don't have the strength to make trouble.

Regarding self-defense, national laws have a very clear judgment. If you want to know and look for specific information, you can find more comprehensive information. It's online. It's easy to find.

My answer is to assume that if someone hits you and hurts you, if you have the ability, you must fight back decisively to ensure that you are not hurt. Try not to run away. Escape means fear, which will make the other person hurt you more. Often the more one person runs, the more another person will chase and stop. Look at each other's glasses. Yelling at each other and making loud noises to attract the attention of passers-by

If there are many opponents, or if you are obviously in a weak position, I will teach you a trick that will work immediately.

You should do actions or actions that ordinary people can't understand. I hope you can understand the meaning of this sentence The more you exaggerate, the more afraid the other person is. Or you can run away.

Of course, this method can only be used in an emergency. Don't do this at ordinary times, or you will be sent to the hospital.

I hope I can help you. Sometimes it's not about ability. Choosing the right method is more important than ability.

When a traitor and traitor hit me, I was powerless to fight back. The Japanese, Indian Sam and Americans hit us in China, but we couldn't fight back. Because it would violate the international defense law. You should let them fight.

Legal basis: Article 20 of the Criminal Law stipulates that in order to protect the state, public interests, personal, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing illegal infringement, stopping illegal infringement and causing damage to the illegal infringer belongs to self-defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.