Chapter 260: Another Explanation of the Recent Plot

Another explanation of the recent plot.

Another explanation of the recent plot.

Every time a new plot appears, there are always people who question it. I really don't want to explain, but some book friends are indeed very confused, and even angry, so I will explain it.

Let me answer a question: is the old man accidentally hitting someone an act of Emergency Avoidance? This has nothing to do with Emergency Avoidance at all. 【Emergency Avoidance】 refers to an emergency act taken as a last resort to protect the state, public interests, or the personal, property, or other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing danger; if damage is caused, no Criminal Case liability shall be borne.

So, let's look closely at the old man's behavior. First, are the old man's personal, property, and other rights in ongoing danger? Pay attention to the word "ongoing" here. Then let's look at the previous example of Emergency Avoidance; in the previous text, the wife was in a situation of ongoing danger, which means measures had to be taken immediately.

But here, the old man appears to be in no such situation; arguing with others and cursing, claiming the child hit his car—no matter how you look at it, this does not constitute a situation for Emergency Avoidance.

To apply Emergency Avoidance, one must note that it must meet the conditions of this provision. Our book friends who have read this far must surely understand one thing: base it on facts. We absolutely cannot rely on our own subjective speculation when looking at a case.

In reality, the old man did not subjectively say anything about going to see a doctor, nor did he express any related concerns. Moreover, he was riding a bicycle, which in itself would not lead to the conclusion that he was in danger or in a state where danger was imminent.

Then there is the second point: the criteria for recognizing Emergency Avoidance are even stricter than Legitimate Defense, which is complained about by many people. One could write a thesis just on this. A case is a case; it absolutely cannot be subjectively speculated upon. What kind of evidence proves what kind of case, forming a logical closed loop of evidence. You cannot say "what if, what if"—there are no "what ifs." The law only looks at facts.

Then there is another question. Later, Lao Li said not to let the other party block Zhou Yi, saying it was an illegal act. Then some people think that Zhou Yi shouldn't have blocked the other party earlier. Here, I emphasize one sentence again: base it on facts, you must look at the facts.

For example, if we go up and grab someone and take them in for no reason, is that illegal? But if the other party is a thief who has finished stealing something, then according to the law, we can take them to the Police Station; this is an act encouraged by the law.

Back to the book: the other party hit someone and wanted to run, and Zhou Yi went up to stop them. There is no problem with this. Note the facts here: there is the cause of the other party hitting someone first, so Zhou Yi went up to stop them while calling for the family of the child who was hit. This absolutely does not constitute any problem, and this is also an act encouraged by the law.

He is not preventing the other party from leaving; he wants to wait for both sides to clarify the responsibility.

Let's pose a "what if" here: what if the other party waits for the police to arrive, and after the responsibility is divided, they feel the compensation is expensive or something, and are unwilling to pay?

Then they can leave at that time. As long as it does not reach the standard of a crime, it is all a civil dispute, and it will be suggested to file a Lawsuit. But you cannot leave before the responsibility is clear. You know why it is full responsibility after fleeing the scene of an accident, right?

And in the hospital, the police have already clearly divided the responsibility, and Zhou Yi does not bear responsibility. If the other party feels dissatisfied, they can go and file a Lawsuit, but they cannot block people from leaving. That is the logic.

Finally, a word for the book friends who like law: when studying law, the biggest taboo is to mechanically apply legal provisions. You must remember the sentence that precedes "base it on the law": base it on facts!

Why does Luo Laoshi say that a person who follows the law might be a piece of trash? The law does not talk about "what ifs," it does not talk about "maybes." The law only talks about evidence. Without evidence, no matter how much you talk, it is useless.

Some book friends feel that I am writing about trivial cases. To be honest, whether it is an insurance dispute or this kind of extortion, such things, when they happen to a person, are a huge deal.

Writing this extortion case is mainly to write about how the protagonist can handle it when encountering extortion in reality. That is how I think about it; extortion is just a plot trigger.

The dead are to be respected, but you cannot say that just because someone is gone, they can occupy all the moral high ground. That is not right.

Alright, that is all for the explanation. Over a thousand words in a single chapter, I am quite something. Continuing to type.

(End of this chapter)