In my opinion, it is a hypothetical proposition to put forward the concept of guilt and innocence, and at the same time, the expression is very incomplete, and it is also a hypothetical reasoning with insufficient preconditions, which has logical errors, and there is no inevitable negative logical relationship between being brave and not guilty; Because these are two different levels. Being brave is the concept of moral category, and crime and non-crime belong to the concept of legal norms. It is obviously inappropriate to simply confuse. The accurate expression should be: does it constitute a crime if a courageous person causes illegal acts or casualties of criminal suspects? Being brave is an ideal moral standard advocated by the Chinese national moral tradition, and it is also what people have been pursuing. "The Analects of Confucius for Politics" said: "Seeing righteousness and not doing it, there is no courage." When you see what justice is, you must do it bravely, even regardless of your personal safety. This is a great sense of justice. Being brave is an ideal morality in the moral category, which has a high moral level and ideological basis and has practical significance. Some local governments have a specific definition of this: "Being brave refers to the behavior of citizens who do not undertake specific duties, in order to safeguard national interests, social public interests or the interests of others, regardless of personal safety, to stand up and fight against illegal and criminal acts." At the same time, we should also see that being brave is an ideal morality, but it is not a civic duty morality. The morality that must be observed is the morality of obligation. Doing what the law allows and obeying the law is the bottom line of compulsory morality. It is obviously unrealistic and unnecessary to require every citizen to have a high moral standard and ideal morality, and everyone can be brave. However, citizens must abide by the law and are strictly forbidden to cross the legal bottom line, otherwise they will be sanctioned and punished by law. This is the order norm of modern society ruled by law.

If the above argument is reasonable, then the insurmountable legal bottom line should be the obligation of citizens, otherwise, no matter how noble the motivation and starting point of the behavior are, it may be immoral or even illegal. There are no exceptions for brave people. As a result, the acts and consequences of being courageous are brought into the scope of law. It is an emotional and irrational view that as long as you are brave, you don't have to bear legal responsibility for any consequences. In addition to misunderstanding the law, this emotion also reflects a common doubt: how to defend yourself or others when they encounter illegal infringement? In the legal sense, self-defense has a strict definition. The law protects and encourages citizens to exercise their right to self-defense, but it must comply with the provisions of the law. Many people think that chasing criminals by car is self-defense, which shows that many people have a good habit of looking at problems with law. However, one thing has been overlooked. Arresting criminals who fled after committing crimes and defending against ongoing crimes are completely different concepts and categories, and the actions that can be taken are also completely different. From the very full report of this incident, it can be seen that the behavior committed by criminals who were killed or injured belongs to robbery rather than robbery, which is not completely consistent with the provisions of Article 20 of the Criminal Law. Zhang Dejun's actions to help robbed women catch gangsters are commendable, but it is obviously unnecessary and unnecessary to take actions that have caused casualties to illegal infringers.

It is believed that as long as "be brave", you can go beyond the legal provisions without bearing legal consequences, and even abuse the right of self-defense, which will only lead to serious consequences such as violence, lynching and revenge, and cause greater social harm. This is not the progress of the rule of law, but a retrogression. Without the rule of law, it is difficult to establish a good moral order and law-abiding environment for citizens.

Please adopt it. Thank you.