I watched director Zhang Yimou's "Article 20" with great anticipation during the Spring Festival holiday. Emotions change from sadness and anger to pain as the story unfolds. When the prosecutor's office ultimately determines that the defendant constitutes legitimate defense and is acquitted, the suppressed emotions instantly turn into tears as justice is upheld. Perhaps some people will say that as a legal person, how could you be moved by such emotional movies! But what I want to say is that this is a very profound legal film, which accurately grasps the current situation of legitimate defense in judicial practice and truthfully reproduces the difficulties in determining legitimate defense.

I have been working in law for 23 years and have been dealing with crime for 23 years. Love for legitimate defense should not have too deep feelings. I used to wear a prosecutor's uniform and badge, so I couldn't help but empathize with the prosecutor's pursuit of justice in the film. In my opinion, this is not a story, it is a living reality. Many people have encountered the confusion of how to defend themselves and how to protect others. Over the past decade, I have only handled one case where the perpetrator was not guilty of self-defense. It was when the perpetrator was in his own home and his husband was surrounded and beaten by multiple people, and he picked up a frying pan at home and beat one of the attackers to minor injuries. Although some cases have a defensive nature, they result in serious injuries and deaths, with family members constantly crying and petitioning. In addition, the judicial authorities face pressure to be suspected of sheltering, making it quite difficult to determine legitimate defense. For example, I once handled a case where a vendor caught a thief. The thief resisted the arrest and engaged in a physical altercation with the vendor, resulting in death due to extensive subcutaneous bleeding. There is a great controversy over whether the vendor constitutes legitimate defense, and ultimately he was sentenced for the crime of intentional injury.

The narrative style of the movie "Article 20" is very clever, with the director arranging one main line and two secondary lines. The three lines all focus on legitimate defense, narrating their understanding and application of legitimate defense from different scenes and perspectives of different characters, with more confusion and frustration. The three lines are all very representative cases, ranging from self-defense to courageous action, all repeatedly tugging at the controversial boundaries of legitimate defense. Whether it is the main case of killing a rapist or the case of a bus driver acting bravely on one of the secondary lines, there will be controversy in reality. Because these two cases share a common characteristic: the infringer did not commit the infringement at a certain moment, but the victim still chose to retaliate. So judicial personnel will determine that the victim no longer has the prerequisite for self-defense, and their counterattack behavior is aimed at harm. However, there is a fact that cannot be ignored, which is that the infringer has not left the scene, still has the ability to infringe, and has not expressed the intention to give up the infringement. They can continue to infringe at any time. In this situation, the danger faced by the victim has not disappeared, and their sense of fear naturally exists.

The definition of justifiable defense has always been clearly stated in criminal law provisions, but it vaguely exists in judicial practice. In the theory of criminal law, there are five conditions required to constitute justifiable defense. If not properly grasped, it is pre defense, post defense, or hypothetical defense. In short, it is not justifiable defense. For many years, the harsh conditions and high threshold for determining legitimate defense have led to rare cases in practice where innocence is declared due to legitimate defense, just like the case of a bus driver on one of the auxiliary lines. Prosecutor Han Ming analyzed that the front was legitimate defense, the middle was mutual assault, and the back was intentional injury. This analytical method of breaking down complete behavior into individual actions has once dominated the minds of countless judicial personnel. It is difficult to be recognized as legitimate defense if it is not accurately counterattacked in an emergency when life is threatened. So much so that Article 20 of the Criminal Law is referred to as a dormant clause. In the critical moment of facing illegal infringement, fear, panic, and helplessness are normal emotions for everyone. Who can accurately determine which action is unnecessary, which action is necessary, and which action exceeds the limit? So many ordinary people choose to flee instead of self-defense when encountering illegal infringement, because if self-defense is not well controlled, it becomes illegal infringement and becomes a criminal. The brave actions of Han Ming's son in the film are another side line. When a hot blooded boy decisively takes action in the face of campus bullying, if what he receives is not affirmation and encouragement, but questioning and negation, and even punishment, it will only force the young man with a sense of justice and courage into a cowardly observer and escapee.

In 2018, the anti killing incident of Longge in Kunshan, Jiangsu Province attracted public attention, and legitimate defense entered the public eye with a new look. There are also different voices when determining whether Yu Haiming's actions constitute legitimate defense. Because after Long Ge wielded a knife to kill Yu Haiming, the knife in his hand fell to the ground. Yu Haiming quickly picked up the knife and began to counterattack Long Ge. Long Ge was at a disadvantage and surrounded the car to avoid, but Yu Haiming still chased after him to kill. Some people say that Long Ge ran away without a knife in his hand, and the illegal infringement has stopped. At this time, Yu Haiming's killing was not self-defense. However, Long Ge was only temporarily evading and did not leave the scene. He may have returned to the car to retrieve the weapon, and his accomplices may have launched an attack together. At this point, Yu Haiming is not completely safe. If he abandons his sword and ends his counterattack, he will inevitably be violated again by Long Ge. Therefore, the judicial authorities ultimately determined that Yu Haiming constituted legitimate defense. After Yu Haiming was acquitted, the whole nation was elated, and this is a milestone in legitimate defense. In order to protect one's own life safety, all necessary countermeasures can be taken to subdue the infringer. It is precisely after this incident that the Supreme People's Procuratorate solemnly proposed: the law cannot make concessions to illegality!

When we abandon the rational and calm perspective of God to examine the legitimacy of every action after the fact. But it is based on the judgment of the perpetrator at that time that legitimate defense truly becomes a weapon bestowed upon the people by law, to counter all illegal infringement.

As a former prosecutor and today's defense lawyer, through the artistic creation of this film, I have seen the tremendous efforts made by the highest judicial organs to awaken the legitimate defense system, as well as the fervent expectations of the people for the legitimate defense system. The law is to make the cost of bad people higher, not to make the cost of good people higher! I hope Article 20 is not just about pleading for the lives of the people in movies, but also pleading justice for the weak! But truly becoming a talisman for kind-hearted people!