The thief jumped into the river and drowned when he escaped and was chased by the security guard. Is the security guard responsible?

The behavior of security guards chasing thieves belongs to performing their duties and self-defense, and they are not responsible for the thief drowning. The thief drowned in order to escape punishment when committing theft, so the thief's behavior itself is at fault.

Recently, such a thing happened in Kunshan, which triggered a heated discussion among many netizens. The thing is, the security guard on duty in a residential area in Kunshan received an alarm from the residents that a thief was breaking into the house.

Immediately, the security guard rushed to check and saw a strange and suspicious man sneaking around the residential building, so the security guard wanted to go up and ask the man out of a responsible attitude towards his work. However, when the man saw the security guard coming towards him, he quickly ran outside the community, apparently to avoid the security guard's inquiry. His escape behavior also directly confirmed his identity as a thief.

The security guard saw the suspicious man escape, so he chased him to the river. Unexpectedly, in order to get rid of the security guard, the man went down to the river and wanted to swim to the other side of the river. However, it may be because he spent too much physical strength when he fled before, which led him to be exhausted when he swam to the middle of the river and eventually drowned.

After the thief drowned, after investigation by the public security organs, the man did steal in the community at that time. Seeing the security guard ask him in the past, the thief was nervous and afraid of exposure, so he ran away. When he fled to the river, he wanted to swim to the other side of the river in order to get rid of the security guards, and eventually drowned because of physical overdraft.

After the thief drowned, his family took the security guard and the property management company to court, demanding compensation for death compensation and mental damage compensation, totaling more than RMB 1.58 million.

After trial, the court rejected the claim of the thief's family on the grounds that there was no legal causal relationship between the security guard and its security company, the property company and the drowning thief. Security guards chasing thieves belong to self-defense and do not bear any responsibility for the death of illegal infringers.

On the surface, the security guard's pursuit of the thief is related to the thief's nervousness, escape, wading and drowning. However, this does not constitute a legal causal relationship. Security guards are property workers. When a resident reports that a thief is going to steal something nearby, the security guard has the obligation to find out. Most importantly, after investigation and verification by the public security department, the drowning person in this case committed theft. As a security guard, it is an act of self-defense to meet a thief who is committing a crime, interrogate him and chase the escaped thief, so he is not responsible for the thief drowning.

Legal knowledge points involved in this incident

I. Post-event defense in justifiable defense

The definition of justifiable defense is to prevent the country, public interests, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from being illegally infringed, and to stop the illegal infringement, thus causing damage to the illegal infringer. It belongs to justifiable defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. According to the provisions of the Criminal Law on self-defense after the event, if a property crime is committed, the perpetrator can be investigated.

Because in the property crime, although the illegal infringer has obtained the property, he can recover the property through measures such as chasing and blocking, which can be considered as the illegal infringement is still going on. Therefore, for property crimes, such as theft, although the theft has ended, self-defense of the perpetrator and recovery of property can restore the infringed property. Therefore, "rear defense" can be implemented.

The knowledge here lies in, for example, fighting, personal injury and so on. If the criminal suspect has stopped the illegal infringement, the party concerned cannot exercise the right of legitimate defense against him, otherwise it will constitute excessive defense. Frankly speaking, that is to say, you can hit others when they hit you, which is considered as self-defense. If you don't fight back when others hit you, but wait until others have finished playing before hitting others, it constitutes excessive defense. For thieves who steal, even if they don't steal, they can still pursue self-defense.

Second, the obligation to assist in self-defense.

In this case, in the process of self-defense, the thief drowned because of exhaustion when crossing the river, but the security guard promptly called the police and contacted the personnel for search and rescue afterwards, which has fulfilled the obligation of rescue, so the security guard does not bear criminal responsibility and civil responsibility in this incident.

Third, the families of thieves have no reason to demand compensation.

Because the thief's theft is originally a criminal act, it is wrong to escape and drown when committing a crime. If he compensated the thief's family, who in the world would dare to catch the thief? From the perspective of encouraging security guards to perform their duties and crack down on crimes, the court refused to support the claim for compensation from the thief's family.

Security guards chasing thieves belong to self-defense and perform their duties, and will not bear criminal and civil responsibilities for the result of the thief drowning.