do boldly what is righteous(jiàn yì yǒng wéi)

do boldly what is righteous

Bravery for a just cause refers to an individual's behavior of protecting the interests of the state and the collective, and the personal and property safety of others by fighting against illegal and criminal acts or by means of emergency, disaster relief and saving others, regardless of his own safety.

basic feature

The main legal features of being brave for a just cause are as follows: 1. The subject of being brave for a just cause is a natural person who is not responsible for legal duties or obligations. The subject who has the legal duty or obligation can not be the subject who acts bravely for a just cause when performing the legal duty or obligation. 2. The object to be protected is the national and collective interests or the personal and property safety of others. In order to protect the safety of life and property, citizens' behavior of fighting against crimes can not be regarded as brave for a just cause. 3. The subjective aspect of being brave for a just cause lies in being active and ignoring personal safety. 4. The objective aspect of being brave for a just cause is that when the interests of the state and the collective or the personal and property of others are being infringed, they will fight against harmful acts or natural disasters without hesitation.

Formation conditions

The first is to protect the interests of the state and the collective and the personal and property safety of others; the second is to have the plot of ignoring personal safety; the third is to carry out the behavior of fighting against illegal and criminal acts or rescuing, rescuing and rescuing people. these three elements must be possessed at the same time to constitute the act of being brave for a just cause.

Legal sources

The theory of management without cause

According to its legal basis and tendency, the theory of management without cause has two different views. the first view is that Pan Dengfeng's act of being brave for a just cause is a kind of management without cause in civil law. Then the loss and expenses suffered by the manager should be compensated by the beneficiary. In this case, the beneficiary is Mr. Liu who lives in the shop, not Xue Dingji who shouts to catch the thief. Its legal basis is Article 93 of the general principles of civil law, which stipulates that "if there is no legal or agreed obligation to manage or serve to avoid the loss of other people's interests, the beneficiary shall be entitled to claim the necessary expenses thus paid" and the Supreme People's court's decision on the implementation of the general principles of civil law of the people's Republic of China; Opinions on Several Issues (for Trial Implementation) Article 132 stipulates: "the necessary expenses that the manager or service provider may require the beneficiary to pay according to Article 93 of the general principles of the civil law, including the expenses directly incurred in the management or service activities and the actual losses incurred in the activities". the second point of view is that Mr. Liu, the beneficiary of this case, has an appropriate obligation of compensation to pan Dengfeng, the victim who has acted bravely for a just cause. Its legal basis is Article 109 of the general principles of the civil law: "if he suffers damage by preventing or stopping the infringement of state or collective property or the property or person of others, the infringer shall bear the responsibility of compensation, and the beneficiary may also give appropriate compensation In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the state, the collective or others, if the aggressor is unable to compensate or there is no aggressor, if the aggressor makes a request, the people's court may order the beneficiary to give appropriate compensation according to the amount of the beneficiary's benefit and his economic situation. some scholars believe that if the damage suffered by the righteous person is caused by infringement factors, it belongs to the concurrence of norms. The righteous person can not exercise it at the same time, but can only choose one of them. Otherwise, it will aggravate the civil liability of the victim who is the same as the victim who has no fault and hinder fairness. Those who advocate doing good deeds should claim damages from the third party in accordance with the provisions of the tort law, and those who are rescued should not sue for compensation. ③

contract doctrine

According to this view, the nature of Pan Dengfeng's act of bravery for a just cause is not "management without cause", but contractual behavior. Xue Dingji's call of "catching thieves" is an offer, while pan Dengfeng's response is an acceptance. However, Xue Dingji "signed" the contract to protect the legitimate property of Mr. Liu from being infringed upon when his residence was stolen, and Mr. Liu did not hold a negative attitude towards Xue Dingji's shouting afterwards. Therefore, Xue Dingji's shouting is a legal act of agency, that is, he signed an oral two-way contract with Pan Dengfeng on behalf of Mr. Liu, that is, Mr. Liu has the right to ask pan Dengfeng to safeguard his interests and the obligation to compensate pan Dengfeng for his losses caused by safeguarding his interests, and pan Dengfeng has the right to obtain compensation for his losses caused by safeguarding others' interests and the obligation to safeguard others' interests The obligation to protect legitimate rights and interests from illegal infringement. therefore, pan Dengfeng's family has no legal basis for claiming compensation from Xue Dingji, who is shouting to arrest the thief. If the gangster is unable to compensate, pan Dengfeng's family members should ask Mr. Liu to compensate for the loss of 60850 yuan in cash according to the provisions of articles 84 and 85 of the current general principles of civil law. Comment and analysis: there are many doubts and mistakes in the contract theory. Not to mention the ambiguity and uncertainty of Xue's agency right and so-called "offer" and "acceptance", it is far fetched and difficult to establish. What's more, pan Dengfeng's arresting behavior is not for the purpose of establishing, changing and terminating a certain civil legal relationship with Mr. Lin, but a kind of help behavior of keeping watch in the neighborhood, and a behavior of citizens' courage to fight against criminals. This kind of behavior is essentially different from contract or contractual behavior. In response to Xue Dingji's cry, pan Dengfeng's behavior of catching thieves with him is more for the purpose of protecting social stability, order and other public interests, reflecting good conduct and a high sense of social responsibility, rather than for the purpose of signing a contract. The direct motive is to arrest the thief, not to protect the property of Mr. Song. Of course, pan Dengfeng's pursuit is conducive to further damage of Mr. Song's property, but it is absolutely not to arrest the thief in order to get compensation for the loss. The victim pan Dengfeng has the ability to rationally control and choose his own behavior. Although he has no obligation to catch or catch the thief and is in danger, he makes the choice to catch the thief bravely under the control of his own free will. This is a courageous act worthy of high praise and affirmation, not a Contractual Act.

The theory of fair responsibility

This view holds that there is no legal causal relationship between Xue Dingji's cry to catch a thief and pan Dengfeng's death for a just cause. However, Xue Dingji and pan Dengfeng have common interests in the process of catching the thief, that is, to subdue the murderer while ensuring their own safety. Although Xue Dingji himself had no fault at all for Pan Dengfeng's death, according to Article 132 of the general principles of the civil law of the people's Republic of China and Article 157 of the opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the implementation of the general principles of the civil law of the people's Republic of China (for Trial Implementation), "neither party is at fault for causing damage, but one party is for the benefit of the other party If the interests or common interests are damaged in the process of activities, the other party or the beneficiary can be ordered to give a certain amount of economic compensation. "Therefore, the parents of the deceased Sue Xue Dingji to claim for compensation has a legal basis. Comment and analysis: the principle of fair liability is based on Article 132 of the general principles of the civil law of the people's Republic of China: "if the parties are not at fault for causing damage, they can share the civil liability according to the actual situation." However, according to the principle of civil law, the premise of applying the principle of fair liability is that all parties have no fault, and there is no fault infringer, that is, there is no infringer or infringer for the damage to the parties. In this case, the culprit who hurt pan Dengfeng is the infringer with fault. Therefore, this case does not apply the principle of fair liability, and can not require the beneficiary or common interest person to bear the liability for compensation. Moreover, the understanding of the so-called "common interests" is not convincing. I think the interests of subduing the murderer in the process of arresting the thief belong to Mr. Lin, Xue Dingji and pan Dengfeng, but more to the whole society. If the person who catches the criminal together is responsible for others who are hurt by the criminal, then who will join in the process of catching the thief in the future? Who is willing to help arrest criminals? I don't think that's the legislative intention of Article 132 of the general principles of the civil law of the people's Republic of China.

Causality theory

This view holds that there is no legal causal relationship between the death of the victim and the person who yells to catch the thief. Causality in law refers to the specific relationship between a certain damage and the corresponding damage result. Therefore, it is impossible for Xue's behavior of shouting to catch a thief to result in the injury or even death of the victim pan Dengfeng. Pan Dengfeng's death is the result of the murderer. It is difficult to find a legal basis for the family members of this case to claim for compensation from those who shout to arrest the thief. analysis: this view shows that Xue is not liable for compensation from the perspective of causality, but the reasons are not comprehensive, and there is no further analysis of the solution of this case.

Let's not talk about it again

This view holds that as a victim of a criminal crime, the losses suffered by the defendant's criminal act have been judged by the people's court in the criminal trial and the trial has been completed. The family members of the deceased Sue again for "although the court has decided to pay compensation, but they have not received the compensation". In fact, it is a repeated prosecution in the same case. According to the principle of "no longer dealing with the matter", the people's court should not try it again. As for the family members of the deceased did not get the compensation, that is the implementation of the effective judgment. If the family members of the deceased did not get the compensation, they can apply to the court for compulsory execution. comment and analysis: the theory of "no longer deal with one thing" sees that the first thing is to apply to the court for compulsory execution of the judgment to realize the main responsibility of the infringer, but ignores the provisions of the civil law of our country on the supplementary right of claim for compensation for loss and the appropriate compensation responsibility of the beneficiary.

Judgment suggestion

Pan Dengfeng's act of catching a thief is an act of bravery for a just cause

Chinese PinYin : jiàn yì yǒng wéi