Property threats drive away thieves.

Generally, chasing a thief to death is not responsible.

First, it does not mean that all thieves are killed or injured, and the pursuers are not responsible. Only in the process of catching up, it is not beyond the necessary scope and does not need to bear responsibility. If there is intentional injury (such as venting personal anger, catching a thief, killing), you may be liable. However, you can rest assured that the eyes of the masses and judges are discerning. In general, it will not cause infringement.

Second, as a security guard in the community, its main duty is to ensure that the relevant property and personal safety of the community owners are not threatened by others. If thieves sneak into the community to steal, it is also their duty for security personnel to chase them. If the thief suddenly has an accident and dies in the process of being chased. It is also their job duty for residential property security to chase thieves and protect the property safety of owners from infringement. The thief had an accident in the process of being chased, which is also an irresistible factor. In addition, after the thief fell into the water at that time, the security guard also chose to save people at the first time, and there was no fault in his related behavior.

Third, in order to protect national interests, 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, it belongs to self-defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. If justifiable defense obviously exceeds the necessary limit and causes great damage, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted. Taking defensive actions against violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc., which seriously endanger personal safety, and causing casualties of illegal infringers, is not excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. Must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis For example, it should be foreseen that if a thief is chased and pulled by a slippery road in rainy days, which may lead to a fall and injury, then his behavior may be suspected of negligence and cause death. If the chase is normal, the weather and ground conditions are normal. If a thief directly crosses the road and is killed by a car, in principle, the car chaser is not at fault in criminal law. However, this kind of chasing behavior constitutes a certain fault in civil law and needs to bear certain liability for compensation.

Legal basis:

Article 20 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) * * * justifiable defense In order to protect national interests, public * *, personal, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing unlawful infringement, and stop unlawful infringement, thus causing damage to the wrongdoer, it belongs to justifiable defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. If justifiable defense obviously exceeds the necessary limit and causes great damage, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted. Taking defensive actions against violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc., which seriously endanger personal safety, and causing casualties of illegal infringers, is not excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.