The reported fighting incident is completely different from the violence in Tangshan barbecue restaurant. According to the information given by the police, the incident was caused by two groups of people who quarreled because of physical collision, which led to a fight. After the people involved reported the case, after preliminary investigation, no one with a criminal record was found. According to this standard, these people's behavior did not rise to the nature of illegality, but at best violated the regulations on administrative penalties for public security. Of course, if the whole incident has caused extremely bad influence, it does not rule out that the police will punish the people involved on the charge of causing trouble. As for the final qualitative and punishment results, we need to wait for the conclusion given by the police.

As we all know, the public is very concerned about the social security situation in Tangshan recently, so even ordinary public security cases and even civil disputes may rise to a higher level, thus triggering the fermentation of public opinion. Under such an objective background, the incident of two groups fighting each other may be punished. After all, this is a public event related to Tangshan's image and public reputation. Although it is more likely to be classified as a public security case, it does not rule out that the police will find other criminal clues during the trial of the case, which is why the fight has not been closed.

Using violence to hurt others in public places is strictly a criminal offence. However, in the specific qualitative criteria, the victim's injury identification, the way of beating and the severity will become the measurement criteria. Judging from the information published at present, the behavior of mutual fighting between the two sides has not shown a substantial bad nature, so the probability of rising to the illegal level is relatively low. Of course, fighting between the two sides in public places is extremely destructive to the local social order, especially when Tangshan's city image and reputation are in a sensitive period, and any impulsive behavior may be infinitely magnified.

It can be seen that there is still some floating space in the qualitative aspect of the fight between two groups notified by Tangshan police, but it is difficult to give it from any angle. Illegal? After all, in the conventional cognition of the public, it is illegal and criminal only after sentencing. As for the punishment of accepting public security detention, it can not be judged by illegality in theory. In short, Tangshan is now in the whirlpool of public opinion, and even ordinary social security cases may be over-interpreted. As for the nature of the struggle between the two groups, it remains to be seen.