Zhiheng's statement | A guide to self-defense: How the law protects your courage from the "anti-killing case"

Recently, with the implementation of the newly revised "Public Security Administration Punishment Law," many friends have asked me about "legitimate defense." I've taken some time to gather and organize information, using AI tools to draft this article for your reference. Feel free to share, comment, and save!

1. The legal framework of self-defense: the coordinated linkage from the Criminal Law to the latest Public Security Administration Punishment Law

Legitimate self-defense, as a statutory right that citizens may invoke to safeguard their own and others’ rights in the face of unlawful aggression, does not have a rigid or immutable legal framework. Its core originates from the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and has been comprehensively refined through the latest judicial guidance opinions. Furthermore, it forms a regulatory synergy with the 2025 revised Administrative Penalties Law of the People's Republic of China, marking an important shift in judicial and administrative regulatory principles from "cautious determination" to "protection in accordance with the law," thereby establishing a three-tier protection system encompassing civil, administrative, and criminal measures.

(I) Legal Foundation: Dual Protection Provided by the Criminal Law and the Public Security Administration Punishment Law

The core legal basis of the self-defense system is Article 20 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 19 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, as amended in 2025. These two laws, from the perspectives of criminal liability and public security administration, together form a layered framework for protecting the right of self-defense.

1. The three important paragraphs of Article 20 of the Criminal Law

This provision, through three paragraphs, clearly defines the criteria for recognizing legitimate self-defense at the criminal level and delineates the boundaries of liability:

• Article 1 (Legitimate Defense): “An act of stopping an ongoing unlawful infringement in order to protect the state, public interests, one’s own person or property, or the rights and interests of others, which causes harm to the perpetrator of the unlawful infringement, constitutes legitimate defense and incurs no criminal liability.”This defines the essence of legitimate self-defense as “right confronting wrong,” thereby establishing the legal basis for defensive actions.

• Paragraph 2 (Excessive Self-Defense): “If legitimate self-defense clearly exceeds the necessary limits and causes significant harm, criminal responsibility shall be borne; however, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted.”This defines the boundaries of criminal liability for acts of self-defense, establishing two cumulative conditions for excessive self-defense: “clearly exceeding the necessary limits” and “causing significant harm.”

• Paragraph 3 (Exceptional Self-Defense): “In the case of defensive actions taken against ongoing violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety, such as assault, homicide, robbery, rape, kidnapping, and other similar offenses, if such actions result in the injury or death of the unlawful aggressor, such actions shall not be considered excessive self-defense, and no criminal liability shall be incurred.”This provision is often referred to as the “right of unlimited self-defense,” providing citizens with the strongest criminal legal protection against serious violent crimes.

2. Legislative Breakthroughs and the Core Spirit of Article 19 of the Law on Public Security Administration Penalties in 2025

The Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, revised and adopted on June 27, 2025 and effective from January 1, 2026, for the first time systematically clarifies the criteria for recognizing legitimate defense in the field of administrative penalties through statutory provisions, thereby filling the previous gap in the identification of defensive actions within the public security administration framework and establishing a tiered, systematic linkage with the legitimate defense system under the Criminal Law.

• Provisions content: “An act of defense taken to prevent an ongoing unlawful infringement, which causes damage, does not constitute a violation of public order and is not subject to punishment; if the act of defense clearly exceeds the necessary limits and causes significant damage, punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the law, but the penalty shall be mitigated; in cases where the circumstances are relatively minor, no punishment shall be imposed.”

• Legislative Spirit：First, it upholds the core principle that “the law must not yield to unlawful conduct,” clearly establishing that citizens have the right to take measures to stop unlawful infringements in the realm of public order, thereby rejecting the erroneous notion that “whoever is injured has the right.”Second, we must adhere to a combination of the “principle of proportionality” and “humanitarian considerations,” thereby safeguarding the legitimate rights of the defender while also preventing the abuse of the right of self-defense.Third, it clarifies the boundary between criminal and administrative regulation, providing precise public security management assessments for defensive acts and excessive acts that do not meet the threshold for criminal liability.

• Institutional Value: Previously, in cases where defensive actions did not result in injuries classified as minor or more severe, the lack of clear public security regulations often led to a dilemma: either no action was taken, or excessive measures were applied. The promulgation of Article 19 of the new law provides a clear legal basis for public security organs to handle such public order disputes, encouraging citizens to courageously intervene in unlawful infringements while also regulating the limits of self-defense, thereby helping to resolve grassroots-level conflicts.

(II) Core refinement: The coordinated application of the 2020 "Guiding Opinions" and the new law.

For a long time, accurately understanding and applying the system of legitimate defense has been a difficult issue in both judicial and administrative law enforcement practice. In response, on August 28, 2020, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued the “Guiding Opinions on the Lawful Application of the System of Legitimate Defense” (Fa Fa [2020] No. 31). This document is currently the most comprehensive judicial guidance on the issue of legitimate defense.

Furthermore, the promulgation of Article 19 of the Law on Public Security Administration Penalties in 2025 has further translated the guiding principles of judicial practice into administrative regulatory rules, thereby establishing a comprehensive system of application comprising “judicial guidance, criminal regulation, and administrative regulation.”

The “Guiding Opinions” and the 2025 version of the “Law on Public Security Administration Penalties” have introduced numerous key refinements in the determination of legitimate defense, with the following core points:

(III) Evolution of the concept: a comprehensive establishment from "ex post stringent demands" to "contextualized judgment"

Looking at the evolution from the provisions of the Criminal Law, through the Guiding Opinions, to the forthcoming 2025 version of the Administrative Penalties Law on Public Security, the most profound change in the criteria for determining legitimate defense lies in the shift in the perspective of judicial and administrative law enforcement—moving from the retrospective, overly critical rationalism of “hindsight judgment” to an objective assessment based on situational empathy.

In the past, there has been, to a certain extent, a tendency in practice to scrutinize the defender’s actions from a detached, rational perspective after the fact, thereby overlooking the fear, tension, and instinctive reactions experienced by the defender during a sudden attack. Currently, the latest legal principles and judicial philosophy emphasize that one must consider the defender’s immediate, pressing circumstances at the time and assess the situation based on the likely reaction of an ordinary person under the same conditions.

This shift is fully reflected in the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, which, by explicitly requiring a contextualized assessment of whether “the act ofStop the behaviorSignificantly exceeds the necessary limit” exceeds the necessary limits, adopts “the general perception of ordinary people” as the standard of measurement and no longer subjects the defender to unrealistic and overly stringent scrutiny.

The updating and refinement of this framework has enabled the coordinated synergy between criminal and administrative regulation, providing citizens with clearer guidance and more robust safeguards in the lawful exercise of their right of self-defense, while also further embedding the rule-of-law principle that “justice need not yield to injustice” in the public consciousness.

2. Analysis of Authoritative Cases: Collaborative Guidance from Judicial Benchmarks and Administrative Law Enforcement Practices

Legal statutes are the skeleton, while case law is the flesh and blood that brings the rules to life through practical application.

The Supreme People’s Court has set a “benchmark” for the determination of legitimate defense at the criminal level by issuing guiding cases and compiling the “Criminal Trial Reference”; following the implementation of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law in 2025, public security organs across the country are also gradually developing practical guidelines for the assessment of defensive actions at the administrative level. Understanding these authoritative viewpoints and practical cases is key to properly applying the system of legitimate defense.

(I) Criminal Guiding Cases: Judicial Benchmarks for the Determination of Self-Defense

The guiding cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court clearly demonstrate a profound shift in judicial philosophy, from “maintaining stability and resolving disputes” to “upholding justice.” The criteria established therein also provide an important reference for determining self-defense in the context of public order.

1. Guiding Case No. 225: Jiang v. The Right of Self-Defense—The Boundaries of the Right of Defense in Cases of School Bullying

This is one of the 40th batch of guiding cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court in 2024, directly addressing the pressing social issue of school bullying involving minors. Its adjudication rules hold significant reference value for handling defense-related disputes arising from school bullying at the public security level.

• Basic Facts of the Case: A 14-year-old junior high school student, surnamed Jiang, was resented by several classmates over a minor issue, and they repeatedly threatened to beat him. On the day of the incident, Jiang was cornered in the restroom by 15 classmates and subjected to a group assault after being choked and knocked to the ground. During the sustained assault, JiangSo-and-so pulled out a non-prohibited folding knife he was carrying and swung it indiscriminately, causing two of his attackers to suffer serious injuries and one to sustain minor injuries.

• Point of contention: Initially, the procuratorial organ charged Jiang with the crime of intentional injury, holding that his conduct might constitute mutual assault or excessive self-defense.

• Key Points and Significance of the Ruling：① Precisely Distinguishing Self-Defense from Mutual Assault: The court explicitly stated that a victim’s intent to defend themselves cannot be dismissed merely because they responded to bullying with defiant words or by using tools to fight back. In determining whether there was an intent to engage in a brawl, it is essential to uphold the principle of unity between subjective and objective elements, comprehensively considering factors such as the cause of the incident, which party was at fault, and whether others were assembled, while also taking into account the likely reactions of minors of similar age in comparable circumstances.

  This standard also applies to the handling of campus disputes at the public security level, helping to prevent a victim’s legitimate self-defense from being mistakenly classified as mutual assault.② The “Contextualized” Determination of the Limits of Self-Defense: Whether the use of force “clearly exceeds the necessary limit” must be assessed based on the specific circumstances confronting the defender at the time. In this case, Jiang was confronted by fifteen individuals, resulting in an extremely uneven balance of power. In a situation of imminent danger—being beaten while already on the ground—he used a knife in self-defense, and his actions were reasonable under the circumstances.

  The court emphasized that the standard for determining reasonableness should be based on the perspective of the defender, rather than an after-the-fact, omniscient standpoint. This principle was incorporated into the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, becoming the core criterion for determining the legitimate use of force at the public security level.③ Final Judgment: Both the first and second instance courts determined that Jiang’s actions constituted legitimate self-defense and acquitted him.

• Case Value: This case unequivocally protects the most vulnerable party in cases of school bullying where the power imbalance is stark, and the judiciary no longer demands that a minor who is being beaten up by a group must mount a “perfect” and “proportionate” defense. With regard to campus bullying disputes at the public security level, the rules established in this case—such as “determination of prior fault,” “consideration of the balance of forces,” and “contextualized assessment of limits”—provide an important reference for public security organs in distinguishing between legitimate self-defense and mutual assault, and in making appropriate administrative decisions.

2. Guiding Case No. 144: Zhang Namula’s Case of Legitimate Defense — Standards for the Application of the Right to Special Self-Defense

This case precisely clarifies the boundary between special self-defense (the right to unlimited self-defense) applicable to serious violent crimes such as “aggression” and the general over‑defense, and it explicitly defines the core criterion of “severely endangering personal safety,” thereby providing a basis for distinguishing the scope of application between criminal self-defense and public security‑related self-defense.

• Key Message: This case clarifies that, in determining whether an act constitutes “aggression,” one should not solely consider whether the perpetrator used a knife; rather, a comprehensive assessment must be made of the means and intensity of the aggression, as well as whether it poses a serious threat to the physical safety of the person defending themselves. Once an unlawful aggression is determined to constitute “aggravated assault,” any harm or death caused by the defender to the aggressor shall, in accordance with the law, be considered as special self-defense and does not incur criminal liability. However, if the aggressive act does not reach the level of “severely endangering personal safety” and only constitutes an unlawful infringement at the public security level, the right of unlimited self-defense shall not apply, and the defensive action must adhere to the principle of proportionality under public security regulations.

(II) Classic View from "Criminal Trial Reference": Refining the Adjudication Rules for Determining Self-Defense

As an authoritative reference for criminal trials at the Supreme People’s Court, the cases it compiles provide meticulous guidance on numerous complex issues in the determination of legitimate self-defense. Many of these judicial perspectives have been incorporated into the legislative spirit of the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, thereby offering direct guidance for law enforcement practices at the public security level. Here are some summaries of landmark viewpoints:

(III) The Coordinated Signal of Authoritative Cases and New Laws

By examining the cases selected and endorsed by the Supreme People’s Court, in conjunction with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Public Security Administration Penalties, one can clearly discern the direction of the coordinated evolution between judicial practice and administrative law enforcement:

1. Shift in stance, boldly assert: There has been a shift from the past conservative stance of “avoiding a determination whenever possible” to a proactive and precise assessment of legitimate self-defense, with courts now daring to acquit defenders even in complex cases involving severe injuries or fatalities. At the public security level, the practice of taking a perfunctory, compromise-driven approach will also be abandoned, with clear support for lawful acts of self-defense.
2. Shift your perspective; refuse to be overly critical.: The criterion for judgment has shifted entirely from “rational post‑hoc analysis” to the “stress‑induced reactions of an ordinary person in a dangerous situation.” Judges and law enforcement officers are required to “empathize” with the defender’s state of tension and fear, a requirement that has now been enshrined as an administrative regulatory principle under the new law.
3. Standardization refined, rules are followable.: By examining specific cases, abstract legal concepts such as “aggression,” “in progress,” and “necessary limits” are translated into actionable criteria that take into account concrete circumstances—such as the number of individuals involved, the types of weapons used, the environment, and the severity of the threat—thereby providing clear guidance for administrative law enforcement.
4. Extended protection, covering diverse scenarios.: The scope of protection under the right of self-defense has been explicitly extended from the traditional areas of life and health to encompass multiple aspects, including personal freedom, human dignity (such as in combating bullying), and lawful property (such as in resisting forced demolition), which is highly consistent with the legislative intent of the new law to safeguard citizens’ diverse legitimate rights and interests.

These cases, together with the new law, have collectively formed a “protective bulwark” for the self-defense system. They serve not only as reference materials for judges and law enforcement officers in handling cases, but also as a clear message to the entire society: the law firmly stands on the side of justice and will never allow the fallacies of “the one who makes the most noise is always right” or “the one who suffers death or injury is always right” to trample upon fairness and justice.

3. The "counter-killing" case that has sparked public debate: judicial refinement and the practical response of new legislation

If legal provisions and guiding cases constitute the theoretical benchmark for legitimate defense, then the series of “counter-killing” cases that occurred between 2018 and 2019 represent the nationwide resonance and judicial refinement triggered when this benchmark is applied to real-world circumstances. The Zhao Yu case in Fuzhou, the Liyuan self-defense killing case, and the Tang Xue case in Lijiang—three cases that all sparked public outcry because “defensive actions resulted in the death of the aggressor”—have, through their handling and ultimate outcomes, clearly charted a turning point in China’s judicial practice: a decisive shift away from the ingrained mindset that “whoever is injured or killed has the stronger claim” toward a firm adherence to the principle that “the law must not yield to illegality.”

The introduction of the self-defense provisions in the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security represents a legislative response to the social needs and judicial principles reflected in these cases, extending the protection of the right of defense from the criminal sphere to the broader realm of public security disputes.

(I) The Fuzhou Zhao Yu Case: Debate on the Boundary Between "Acting Righteously" and Excessive Self-Defense

Key Facts of the Case: On the night of December 26, 2018, Fuzhou resident Zhao Yu heard a woman named Zou calling for help. He went downstairs and found Li assaulting Zou. Zhao Yu stepped in to intervene and, during a confrontation with Li, pushed him to the ground and kicked him once in the abdomen, ultimately causing Li to sustain second-degree serious injuries. Zhao Yu was placed under criminal detention on suspicion of intentional injury and was subsequently transferred for review and prosecution.

1. Rule Mapping and Judicial Overreach

• Nature of the behavior: The primary issue in this case is whether Zhao Yu’s actions constitute legitimate self-defense as an act of “righteous and courageous behavior,” or whether they amount to a criminal offense. The procuratorial organ ultimately determined that the act was defensive in nature, with the purpose of stopping an ongoing unlawful infringement (Li’s assault on another person). This determination embodies the principle of “prioritizing the intent to defend oneself” and is entirely consistent with the legislative spirit of the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, which seeks to protect acts of bravery and encourage the prevention of unlawful infringement.
• Damage threshold and causation: This case was once deemed to constitute “excessive self-defense,” with the key issue being that it resulted in “serious harm” (severe injury). However, the ultimate decision not to prosecute thoroughly examined the causal relationship and concluded that Li’s serious injuries were not directly causally linked to Zhao Yu’s act of self-defense (some of the injuries were attributable to Li’s own actions).

  This essentially involves a strict interpretation of the “significant harm” requirement, so as to avoid retroactively determining that conduct was excessive solely on the basis of the outcome. This logic also applies at the level of public order: in determining whether a defensive act constitutes excessive self-defense, one must not rely solely on the harm caused, but also examine the direct causal link between the act and the resulting harm.

2. The significance of its resonance with the New Law

In this case, Zhao Yu’s conduct constitutes a typical instance of “stopping unlawful infringement by others,” that is, an act of bravery and righteousness. Previously, for acts of self-defense classified as righteous and courageous behavior that did not result in serious injury or death, the public security organs lacked a clear legal basis for handling such cases due to the absence of specific public order regulations. The promulgation of Article 19 of the Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security in 2025 has clarified the legality of such conduct: necessary actions taken to prevent unlawful infringements of public order by others do not constitute violations of public security administration and are not subject to punishment.

This will effectively encourage citizens to bravely step forward when confronted with public security violations, thereby addressing the previous concerns of those who acted bravely but hesitated due to fear of liability.

(II) Laiyuan self-defense case: the home as a fortress and the activation of the right to unlimited self-defense

Key Facts of the Case: At approximately 23:00 on July 11, 2018, after being repeatedly rejected for his harassment, Wang entered the home of villager Wang Xinyuan by scaling the wall, carrying two fruit knives and a telescopic baton. Inside the courtyard, Wang engaged in a violent fight with the couple, Wang Xinyuan and Zhao Yinzhi. To protect themselves and their family, the couple used farm tools and other implements to fight back, ultimately resulting in the death of Wang. Wang Xinyuan and Zhao Yinzhi were initially approved for arrest on suspicion of intentional homicide.

1. Rule Mapping and Judicial Overreach

• The urgency of the superposition of time and space: At midnight, Wang unlawfully entered a residence while armed with a dangerous weapon; this act in itself has severely undermined citizens’ most fundamental sense of security. The judicial authorities ultimately determined that the unlawful infringement was “in progress” and posed an extremely high and imminent danger, rendering the defensive action necessary and urgent. “The inviolability of the home” is a fundamental right of citizens. In 2025, the Law on Public Security Administration Penalties further strengthened the protection of residential security, explicitly granting citizens the right to take necessary measures to stop unlawful acts of illegal entry into private dwellings.
• Determination of “severely endangering personal safety”: In the face of an armed intruder committing an assault, the danger confronting the defender satisfies the criteria set forth in Article 20, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Law, which pertains to “assaults” and other situations that seriously endanger personal safety. In this case, the provisions on special self-defense (the right to unlimited self-defense) were ultimately applied directly, and the actions of Wang Xinyuan and his wife were deemed to constitute legitimate self-defense, thereby absolving them of criminal liability.

  This marks a new high in the protection of “home” as an absolute private domain, and it also provides a valuable guideline for addressing disputes involving unlawful entry into residences at the public security level—namely, that citizens’ actions to prevent such intrusions, even when they do not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution, should likewise be legally supported.

2. The significance of its resonance with the New Law

The concept of “the home as a fortress of defense” embodied in this case was incorporated into the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security. With regard to the public security offense of unlawfully entering another person’s residence late at night and disturbing residents’ daily lives, the new law grants residents the right to take necessary measures to stop such conduct; as long as these measures do not clearly exceed the necessary limits, they shall not be deemed a violation of public order regulations.

This further strengthens the legal safeguards for citizens’ “home security” and addresses the public’s strong demand for the inviolability of private residences.

(III) The Lijiang Tang Xue Case: Late-Night Door-Banging and the Comprehensive Application of the "Defender's Perspective"

Key Facts of the Case: In 2019, in Lijiang, Yunnan, Li Mouxiang, after consuming alcohol, went to Tang Xue’s home armed with a kitchen knife and began slashing at her front door. Tang Xue went outside with a peeling knife and a fruit knife to investigate, and a conflict ensued. Tang Xue stabbed Li Mouxiang, causing his death. The proceedings in this case were complex, and the controversy was substantial.

1. Rule Mapping and Judicial Overreach

• The Continuity of the Harm and the Realistic Danger: Although Li Mouxiang was ultimately killed in self-defense, his act of smashing the door with a kitchen knife while intoxicated already posed a serious and imminent threat to the individuals inside. The judicial authorities ultimately determined, from the perspective of the defender Tang Xue at the time, that the unlawful infringement had not yet ceased and that the danger persisted. This “defender’s perspective” standard of judgment is the core principle of the 2020 Guiding Opinions and was also established as the fundamental principle for determining self-defense in the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security.
• Balance of Power and Situational Judgment: When determining whether the response “clearly exceeded the necessary limits,” the court did not rely on a mechanical comparison of the tools involved (a kitchen knife versus a fruit knife), but instead took into account Li Mouxiang’s prior aggressive actions, Tang Xue’s fear as a woman facing provocation and violent threats, as well as the enclosed and tense environment—occurring late at night in front of her home.

  The logic underlying this comprehensive judgment provides clear guidance for addressing similar nighttime nuisance disputes at the public security level.

2. The significance of its resonance with the new law

From the time Tang Xue’s case was prosecuted to the final decision by the procuratorial organ not to prosecute, the entire process exemplified a judicial philosophy that opposes outcome-based reasoning. Article 19 of the Law on Public Security Administration Penalties, as amended in 2025, explicitly stipulates that whether aStop the behavior (act of stopping) is excessive shall be determined by a comprehensive assessment of both the “ongoing unlawful infringement” and the “necessary limit,” rather than being judged solely by retroactively examining the resulting harm.

This means that, in disputes involving public order, even if a defensive act causes some harm, as long as it is necessary to stop the unlawful infringement, it should be deemed lawful. The practical experience gained from this case provides an important reference for the effective implementation of the new law at the grassroots level, helping law enforcement officers accurately grasp the core requirements of “contextualized judgment.”

(IV) The common values of the three cases and legislative responses

Looking at the three cases as a whole, their trajectories are strikingly similar: starting with criminal proceedings or arrest based on the “severity of death and injury” criterion, they then undergo reclassification under public scrutiny and in light of legal principles, ultimately concluding with the determination that the actions constituted legitimate self-defense and did not incur criminal liability. They are no longer isolated cases; rather, together they mark a judicial milestone in the revival and activation of China’s self-defense system.

The introduction of the self-defense provisions in the 2025 Law on Public Security Administration Penalties represents a legislative response to the social needs highlighted by these cases: first, it translates judicial principles such as “contextualized judgment” and “prioritizing defensive intent” into administrative regulatory rules; second, it fills the gap in the identification of defensive acts at the public security level, extending the protection of the right of defense to a broader range of grassroots disputes; and third, through clear statutory provisions, it standardizes both judicial and administrative law enforcement, thereby preventing inconsistent handling of similar cases.

These three cases vividly demonstrate that only when the law stands on the side of justice can citizens truly feel empowered to defend themselves and act bravely in the face of injustice, with the support of institutional safeguards. Moreover, the enactment of the new law extends this sense of confidence to every everyday public-order dispute.

4. The gray area of the limits of self-defense: difficulties in judgment and normative guidance in complex situations

Although legal provisions have become increasingly clear, and both the judiciary and administrative law enforcement explicitly encourage self-defense and protect those who defend themselves, in real-life complex conflicts, the line between legitimate self-defense, excessive self-defense, and mutual affray still contains numerous “gray areas” that require careful consideration. In these areas, what is at stake is not merely the ability to apply legal provisions, but also whether law enforcement and judicial authorities truly uphold the principle of “taking the perspective of the defender into account.”

It originates from the ever-changing crime scene, serving as an arena where abstract rules and concrete reality clash. In light of the latest provisions of the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, the following provides a systematic review and normative guidance on the most common challenging issues encountered in practice.

(I) Difficulty 1: How is the “continuing state” of an infringement determined? — The boundary lies in whether the “danger” has truly been eliminated.

This is the most controversial difficulty in temporal judgment. The unlawful infringement being “in progress” does not equate to the “action being continuous.” The key issue is whether, although the harmful act has been temporarily suspended, the hazardous state it created has been substantially eliminated.

1. Laws and Enforcement Standards

According to Article 6 of the “Guiding Opinions on Lawfully Applying the System of Legitimate Defense,” where an unlawful infringement has been temporarily interrupted or temporarily halted, but the perpetrator still has a real possibility of resuming the infringement, such infringement shall be deemed to be ongoing. Article 19 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law, as amended in 2025, continues to uphold this standard, explicitly stipulating that a defensive act is directed against an “ongoing unlawful infringement,” and that such determination shall be made based on the circumstances faced by the defender and in accordance with the general understanding of the public.

2. Typical Scenarios and Enforcement Guidelines

• Scenario One: The assailant has temporarily ceased the attack but has not left the scene. For example, A and B get into a dispute. A initiates the assault by striking B, and after B retaliates, A stops but remains in place, verbally abusing B and making threatening gestures with his fists. At this point, although A’s act of aggression has been temporarily interrupted, the dangerous situation has not yet been eliminated, and B may continue to defend himself until A leaves the scene or clearly abandons the aggression.
• Scenario Two: The perpetrator fled but has not yet escaped the area of control. For example, if A steals B’s property and is discovered, and during B’s pursuit of A, A draws a stick carried on his person and strikes back, B may continue to take defensive action. Although A had already succeeded in the theft at this point, B could still recover the property by pursuing A, meaning the unlawful infringement had not yet ceased; moreover, A’s act of resistance further escalated the danger, so B’s right of self-defense remains valid.
• Scenario Three: After being subdued, the perpetrator regains the ability to commit the offense. For example, if A assaults B with a brick, and B pushes A to the ground, but A quickly gets up and again charges at B with the brick, then B may once again take defensive action. Because after Party A was pushed down, their capacity to cause harm was not completely eliminated, and the danger persists.

These circumstances collectively reveal a core principle: law enforcement and judicial adjudication no longer interpret the “cessation of harm” in a mechanical manner as simply the cessation of the act of assault, but instead dynamically assess whether the danger continues to exist. This shift in the perspective of legal assessment has significantly broadened the permissible temporal scope for the exercise of the right of self-defense, and it has also provided public security organs with a clear framework for adjudicating such complex public order disputes.

(II) Difficulty 2: How is the "obvious disproportion" between the means of aggression and defense determined? -- An inevitable choice under a significant disparity in strength.

When the defensive means appear significantly more forceful than the offensive means (for example, the attacker is unarmed while the defender uses a knife), does this necessarily constitute an “obvious excess of necessary limits”? The key here lies in the word “obvious,” which introduces a crucial variable: the overall level of danger faced by the defender, rather than a mere comparison of the means themselves.

In 2025, the Law on Public Security Administrative Penalties explicitly stipulates that the determination of the limits of self-defense must take into account the specific circumstances of the “ongoing unlawful infringement,” and avoid a mechanical comparison of means.

1. Core Considerations in Law Enforcement

The “inevitable” judgment in comprehensive situational contexts: Whether a response is “clearly disproportionate” must be assessed within the overall context of the balance of forces between the parties and the urgency of the threat. When the number of attackers is overwhelming, the balance of power is severely skewed, or the attack is sudden and violent, the use of force by the defender to stop the aggression is often deemed necessary and justified.

Law enforcement officers must empathize with the defender’s emotions of fear and tension at the time and assess the necessity of the defensive measures based on the cognitive standards of a reasonable person, rather than imposing an overly stringent post‑facto rational standard on the defender.

2. Analysis of a Typical Case: Jiang’s Self-Defense Case (Guiding Case No. 225)

• Scenario: One junior high school student vs. 15 classmates who ganged up, choked him, knocked him down, and continued to beat him.
• Comparison of methods: Aggressor: Multiple individuals jointly assaulted the victim with their bare hands; Defender: Used a personal, non-prohibited folding knife in self-defense.
• The court finds that: There was no clear excess of the necessary limits; it constitutes legitimate self-defense.
• Referees and the Logic of Enforcement: Faced with an overwhelming disparity in strength—1 against 15—and having already been knocked down twice while continuing to be attacked, Jiang Moumou, in a state of extreme panic, used a knife in self-defense, which was a necessary measure to stop the ongoing assault. Its retaliatory actions were restrained and did not constitute the indiscriminate use of violence. This case established the legitimacy of using tools in self-defense in situations characterized by a significant disparity in strength, providing direct guidance for law enforcement in handling disputes such as group assaults and school bullying—namely, even in cases of unarmed aggression, if there is a substantial numerical imbalance and an imminent threat, the defender’s use of non‑controlled tools in response should not be deemed to “clearly exceed the necessary limits.”

(III) Difficulty 3: The Fine Line Between Mutual Assault and Self-Defense—The "Right and Wrong" Amidst the Confusion

This is the most common and also the most complex distinction in judicial and administrative law enforcement practice. Especially in “chaotic situations” where both parties engage in aggressive conduct, how should one determine whether the incident constitutes mutual assault or legitimate self-defense? Both the 2025 Law on Public Security Administration Penalties and the Guiding Opinions explicitly reject the simplistic approach of “each getting fifty strokes,” emphasizing the need to adhere to the principle of unity between subjective and objective elements and to accurately distinguish the nature of the conduct.

1. Distinguishing criteria and key points

In accordance with Article 9 of the “Guiding Opinions” and the spirit of Article 19 of the 2025 “Law on Public Security Administration Penalties,” mutual fighting refers to reciprocal attacks motivated by pre‑existing unlawful intentions, such as venting anger or seeking revenge; self‑defense, on the other hand, is undertaken to stop an ongoing unlawful infringement. The key distinguishing points are as follows:

2. Analysis of a Typical Case: The Intentional Injury Case of Tang Mouhua and Yang Mouxiang (Criminal Trial Reference No. 1600)

• Chaotic Scene: After the victim, while intoxicated, harassed and assaulted a woman, he then engaged in a physical altercation and standoff with Tang Mouhua, who had intervened to stop him (the victim was armed with a stone). Tang and Yang dragged the victim into the elevator lobby and assaulted him with punches and kicks.
• First-instance determination: Intentional injury (resulting in death).
• Reversed on appeal: Justifiable defense, not guilty.
• Boundary Logic: The court has adopted a meticulous division of stages and a comprehensive assessment; this same rationale also applies to the handling of public-order disturbances and disputes:① Cause: The victim was at fault first, having committed an unlawful act (harassing and assaulting a woman). The actions of Tang and Yang were taken to stop this unlawful conduct, and they had no prior intent to engage in a fight.

  ② Nature of the behavior: His conduct constituted a counterattack directed against a continuing unlawful infringement (the victim was still confronting him with a stone), with the aim of stopping the aggression rather than initiating an attack.③ Behavioral restraint: The retaliatory act ceased voluntarily after approximately 40 seconds, and the victim left on their own, indicating that the conduct was limited to the scope necessary to stop the infringement.

By meticulously analyzing the sequence of actions and the subjective intent, the court successfully discerned a clear defensive character from what initially appeared to be a chaotic melee. This provides important guidance for public security organs in handling similar public order disputes—when confronted with chaotic situations, they should not simply conclude that a mutual assault has occurred on the grounds that “both parties were physically involved,” but rather meticulously examine the root cause of the incident, assign fault, assess the intent behind the actions, and evaluate the degree of restraint, thereby accurately distinguishing between self-defense and mutual assault.

(IV) Difficulty 4: Defining "aggression" in special self-defense—A life-or-death threshold.

Article 20, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Law grants “unlimited self-defense rights” against violent crimes such as “aggressive assault”; however, “aggressive assault” itself is a “gray concept” that requires interpretation. To what extent does violence constitute “aggression”? The answer to this question directly determines the scope of application of the right of special self-defense and, indirectly, influences the assessment of the limits of self-defense in the context of public order—specifically, the differentiation between the circumstances in which criminal self-defense and administrative self-defense apply.

1. Standards for Judicial Determination

“Acting with violence” is not a specific criminal charge; rather, it refers to the use of a deadly weapon, or, even in the absence of a weapon, conduct that—based on the number of victims, the areas struck, and the force employed—poses a serious threat to the physical safety of others. Its core characteristic is that the behavior poses a level of danger sufficient to cause serious injury or death. It should be noted that “aggressive assault” applies only to the criminal‑law context of legitimate self‑defense. In the realm of public order, unlawful aggression that does not reach the level of “severely endangering personal safety” is not subject to the right of unlimited self‑defense; defensive actions must adhere to the principle of proportionality.

2. Guidance from Typical Cases

3. Gray Areas and Enforcement Discretion

The gray area lies in how to distinguish between “aggressive assault” and “ordinary beating.” For example, even if the attack is carried out with bare hands, but involves a large number of assailants, targets vital areas such as the head, and is delivered with great force—potentially endangering life—it may still be classified as “aggressive assault.” Conversely, ordinary acts such as shoving or slapping are unlikely to fall under the provisions for legitimate self-defense. This requires law enforcement officers and judicial authorities to make an extremely precise assessment of the level of danger posed by on‑scene violence—where the key criterion is “whether it seriously endangers personal safety,” rather than “whether a weapon was used” or “whether there were fatalities or injuries.”

With regard to law enforcement in the area of public order, if the harmful act does not meet the threshold of “aggravated assault,” even if there is a certain disparity between the defensive measures and the offensive acts, as long as such measures do not clearly exceed the necessary limits, they should be deemed lawful self-defense. However, if the harmful act already approaches the threshold of “aggravated assault” and may constitute a criminal offense, the case should be promptly referred to the criminal investigation department of the public security authorities for handling, rather than being concluded with a mere administrative penalty.

(V) Summary of Difficulties: Core Principles and Enforcement Guidelines

The “gray area” of self-defense is, in essence, the zone where legal principles and the infinitely diverse realities of individual cases intersect and must be reconciled. The aforementioned difficulties and case examples demonstrate that China’s judicial and administrative law enforcement systems are striving to reduce the ambiguity of discretionary power by establishing more refined criteria for judgment, such as comprehensive situational assessment, dynamic risk evaluation, and precise delineation of the nature of conduct.

For law enforcement officers, the key is to adhere to three principles: first, “prioritizing the intent of defense,” which means first examining whether the defender had the intention to stop the unlawful aggression before assessing the limits of the action; second, “situational perspective,” which involves evaluating the reasonableness of the action from the defender’s standpoint at the time, using the cognitive standards of a reasonable person; and third, “the bottom line of the principle of proportionality,” which requires that the defensive action be roughly commensurate with the degree and intensity of the danger posed by the unlawful aggression and does not cause unnecessary harm.

These principles are highly consistent with the legislative spirit of the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, and together they help ensure that, in every complex situation, the principle that “the law must not yield to unlawful conduct” finds a clear point of application.

5. Guide for Ordinary People: 5 Practical Tips on How to Legally Defend Yourself When in Danger

In light of the legal provisions and judicial cases discussed earlier, as well as the latest requirements of the 2025 Law on Public Security Administration Penalties, both judicial and administrative law enforcement have clearly shifted toward protecting the defender in determining legitimate self-defense, with the core principle being that “the law must not yield to illegality.” However, the exercise of rights must be based on a clear understanding.

The following five recommendations are all drawn from official guidelines, final court judgments, and new legal provisions, and are designed to help you make choices that are both courageous and wise in times of emergency.

(I) Mindset First: Cultivate a mindset of "contextualized" judgment and understand the boundaries of legal tolerance.

This is the cornerstone of all suggestions. Both the 2025 Law on Administrative Penalties for Public Security and the 2020 Guiding Opinions clearly stipulate that, in determining whether self-defense has been excessive, the assessment must be made “based on the circumstances confronting the defender at the time of defense and in accordance with the general perceptions of the public”; it is unreasonable to expect the defender to possess the calm and rational hindsight that comes after the fact.

1. What you should do

When you are being harmed, quickly assess the overall situation, and understand that your fear, anxiety, and instinctive reactions are all taken into account by the law.