How to treat the security company's refusal to compensate the family members arrested for beating takeaway for 20,000 yuan?

The news that "the company died in a conflict with the community security after delivering food in the early morning" has aroused widespread concern in society. Most netizens lamented why the two groups living at the bottom of society are constantly in conflict. Can't they understand and tolerate each other? According to the theory that the four elder brothers have laws, the contradiction between these two groups cannot be solved through mutual understanding between these two vulnerable groups, because there are "bosses" behind them, and it is basically impossible for any "boss" to give up their respective interests.

Let's talk about crime first: in Xiantao, Hubei, a delivery man clashed with a community security guard. The security guard took out a rubber stick and hit the delivery man on the head with alcohol. The delivery man fell to the ground and never got up. Judging from the incident, the security guard should not have seen the takeaway, and the security guard did not directly harm the company's takeaway motivation. During the conflict between the two sides, the security guard attacked the takeaway with equipment, resulting in the helmet of the takeaway being smashed and the head bleeding. The intensity objectively reflects the intention of the security guard to hurt the takeaway, which constitutes the crime of intentional injury, and can be punished with fixed-term imprisonment of more than ten years, life imprisonment or si punishment according to law.

Article 234 of the Criminal Law Whoever intentionally harms another person's body shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance. Whoever commits the crime mentioned in the preceding paragraph and causes serious injuries shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years; Whoever causes death or serious disability by particularly cruel means shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment or criminal detention. Where there are other provisions in this Law, such provisions shall prevail.

According to the wife of the takeaway, she received a phone call from her husband and rushed to the scene a few minutes later. Her husband is still lying on the ground. No one called the security guard and the property that beat people 120 and 1 10. It was the onlookers who called 1 10 first. When the police arrived at the scene, they called 120. When 120 arrived at the scene, the doctor blamed the call on the spot, which had exceeded the best rescue time. If you have a little medical knowledge, you should know that the attack of the security guard caused the intracranial hemorrhage of the takeaway. If the rescue is timely, there is still hope of survival. As the person responsible for the injury, the security guard and the property have the obligation to help the injured. Why not call the police and call 120 in time? This is the worst part of the case. The police should investigate the situation at the scene. If the security guard and the property know that the harmful consequences of take-out will endanger life safety, but they do not actively rescue and let the consequences of take-out die, it constitutes intentional homicide and belongs to indirect intention in criminal law.

Article 232 of the Criminal Law: Whoever intentionally hurts others shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment, life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of more than 10 years; If the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years.

Second, on the issue of civil compensation: Some media reported that the security company to which the security guards involved belonged sent 20,000 yuan to the relatives of the takeaway on the third day of the accident to express condolences, which was returned by the takeaway. The wife of the takeaway said that it is useless for people to ask for money and demand heavy punishment for the security involved!

What the "four brothers have the law" wants to say is that relatives don't have to return 20 thousand yuan, which is the first payment of the party responsible for the accident and can be deducted from the compensation amount later. This 20,000 yuan is definitely not the amount that the security company is willing to "reconcile", and your acceptance does not mean that you are understanding the murderer.

On the issue of civil compensation, "four brothers have the law" gave some suggestions. According to the law, if a criminal offence causes losses to the victim, the court only supports compensation for "material losses", including transportation expenses, medical expenses and funeral expenses. And it does not include the "big head"-the company's death compensation. Because there is no such "big head", even if the court decides, the compensation amount is not satisfactory. Therefore, the "four brothers have the law to say" suggests that the family members of the takeaway can "reconcile" on the issue of compensation.

What kind of family members will feel angry when such a thing happens, but the life of the living will continue. Besides, you have underage children to raise, so it's better to try to "reconcile" each other. If the other party is willing to give a satisfactory amount, a letter of understanding can be issued to the other party, so that the court can give a light sentence to the security guard. The length of the security guard's sentence has little effect on the life of the salesperson's family, but only comforts the injured heart.

If the compensation cannot be "reconciled", the family members of the takeaway should not file criminal incidental civil compensation, and the judgment in this case will not be too high. Even if a lawsuit is filed, a separate civil lawsuit will be filed after the criminal judgment, in order to win the court's support for "big head" compensation by using the civil code judgment.

Article 179 of the civil code? Anyone who infringes on others and causes personal injury shall pay compensation for medical expenses, nursing expenses, transportation expenses, nutrition expenses, hospital food subsidies and other reasonable expenses for treatment and rehabilitation, as well as the income reduced due to missed work. If it causes disability, it shall also compensate for the cost of assistive devices and disability compensation; If death is caused, funeral expenses and death compensation shall also be paid.

Third, the contradiction between the takeaway and the security guard: the takeaway was locked by the security steel fork for refusing epidemic prevention registration, the university doorman and the takeaway were beaten by the security guard, and the mall security guard was beaten by the takeaway rider ... If the contradiction between the two cannot be fundamentally resolved, the case of Xiantao, Hubei Province is not accidental, but inevitable, just a matter of different time and place.

There is nothing wrong with the deliveryman wanting to enter the community in time to complete the order and get good performance. For the safety of the owners, security guards are not allowed to enter and leave the community at will, and there is nothing wrong with it. If either side compromises with the other side, it means that it has not fulfilled its responsibility and will be punished by the "superior". The take-away clerk didn't complete the order in time. After the customer's bad review, the take-away platform will deduct money, and a deduction of several hundred is a few days of hard work. If a takeaway or a person pretending to be a takeaway enters the community to engage in illegal and criminal activities, security guards will be accused by security companies, property companies and community owners. So it is difficult for them to "understand each other" directly.

Takeaways and security guards are workers at the bottom of society, and they don't have much autonomy in their work, because they all have their own bosses. The "boss" of takeaway is the takeaway platform, and the "boss" of security is the owner of security company and service. Can these two "bosses" be harmonious? It is difficult to analyze from the fundamental interests of both sides! The takeaway platform wants market share and pursues economic benefits. If the take-away platform deliberately avoids the conflict with security guards, it means that it can't serve customers well, which means that it will gradually lose the market and die. If the community owners take care of the hard work of the take-away workers and let the security guards release those who wear take-away clothes at will, it is equivalent to letting the owners give up the most fundamental "right to peace" (maintaining a safe and quiet private life) to sympathize with the weak, which is simply unrealistic.

How to take care of the "hard work" of the takeaway while ensuring the owner's right to peace? The "four brothers have the law" did not come up with a good solution, and thought that only by means of the public power "mediation" of the relevant departments could a temporary feasible solution be found. For example, the take-away company negotiated with the security company, designated the take-away clerk to send the order to a fixed community, and the security guard checked the documents for release. Do you have any good ideas? Please give your advice, will you? Thank you very much