Chasing the thief to death, who reported the alleged Wulong reflection-jslottery

"Chasing the thief to death, who reported the alleged" Wulong Shu Rui reflect commentary authors before the media reported Fujian a man chasing the thief by the ground died after being sued, caused a great disturbance of public opinion. Fujian prosecutors recently clarified that the case is still in the prosecution stage, the prosecution has not yet filed for the man. No doubt, this is a Oolong report". From the legal point of view of the incident, we must first clarify whether the masses have the right to catch the thief. The provisions of the "Criminal Procedure Law", for a crime or is discovered immediately after committing a crime, any citizen can immediately seized and turned over to the judicial organs. Even if the thief only order punishment, people have the right to. According to the "public security organs for administrative cases procedures", the public security organs of the masses to the case, shall promptly accept. If the mass is stolen, more self relief, "catch the thief" is more natural right. In fact, catching the thief is not only the rights of the masses, but also the performance of their commitment to civic responsibility. However, just as any right has limit, people catch the thief right should be limited in a certain range, on the one hand to catch the thief in, can not take aggressive take revenge; on the other hand, is not to catch the thief means significantly beyond the reasonable range. In judicial practice, there have been people, the thief chase into the river and hinder ashore, leading to the thief drowned, finally caught the thief who were prosecuted for criminal responsibility. Back to the incident, only from the reported situation, the blue one is just pulling the thief’s sleeve, because the slide fell and then led to the thief killed, which did not exceed the reasonable range. Therefore, it is considered more appropriate for accidental death, which may also be the reason why the public generally questioned the case. Of course, before the report itself is not rigorous, the specific case of the case has yet to be further identified, judge and publish. For the self reported event, we should not only pay attention to the case, but also to focus on Oolong itself. In fact, there are a lot of friends noticed, the man was indicted correspondent reported that someone’s Procuratorate staff, and then the procuratorate responded that the man has not been prosecuted. This will inevitably make people suspicious. There is such a "Oolong report", the local procuratorate not only need to clarify the facts of the case, be on how to give a statement by Wulong correspondent, what is false, or the reporter distorted the newsletter, is worthy of studying. If you take more stringent standards before the reported more serious mishap. That is, even if the procuratorate prosecution, reported to mention the case, at least should also add "prosecutors claimed," should not be correspondent or the reporter to find the facts of the case, which is obviously in effect, judicial personnel deprived of jurisdiction. The judicial report is most serious, whether the judicial organ or the media are to be cautious, accurate and carefully grasp the scale is reported, the media can not shirk responsibility. Oolong judicial report seriously misleading the public, but also let them have a misunderstanding of the judiciary and questioned, it should not be. [more news interpretation, WeChat add public account today topic listen]相关的主题文章: