The first question: Should we bear civil liability?
There are many ways to produce civil liability, the most important of which are breach of contract and infringement. In this case, Xu Ting obtained the cash that did not belong to him by illegal means, and obtained all the property of the state financial institution by infringement, which infringed on the bank's ownership of the cash of 654.38+0.75 million yuan. Therefore, the property losses caused by its actions should be borne by it.
The second question: Does Xu Ting's behavior constitute theft?
According to the provisions of Article 264 of the Criminal Law, theft refers to the act of secretly stealing a large amount of public or private property or stealing public or private property many times for the purpose of illegal possession. According to the composition of the four elements of crime, Xu Ting is an adult and meets the requirements of the subject of crime. Its purpose is illegal possession of cash, which conforms to the subjective elements; Its secret theft of property meets the objective requirements; The object of theft is property, which meets the requirements of the object, so it constitutes theft. Moreover, it is the theft of financial institutions, which is an aggravating circumstance of theft.
The third question: Xu Ting's behavior violates the moral standard of respecting others' property freedom (according to our statement, the road doesn't pick up things and doesn't take advantage of others).
Private property should be protected. Even if the owner can't control or neglect it, he should not possess it. This is the moral requirement of the whole society for citizens. Xu Ting's actions violated this requirement.
The fourth question:
Title: excuse or reason?
On others' neglect of our moral deficiency
Text:
Six years ago that night, if Xu Ting had broken the ATM with a hammer and taken away 6,543,800 yuan, today's debate and discussion would not have continued. Xu Tinghui was accused by thousands of people as a vicious gangster, who forgot his righteousness for money and was insatiable. However, facts always sound like stories. The mistakes in the bank ATM system have formed a state of legal negligence and negligence, which makes the public stand behind Xu Ting and point the contradiction to the law that represents the moral bottom line.
It seems that a perfect answer can be drawn here: Xu Ting's behavior should not be punished by law, and our criminal law does not represent the will of most people. This answer seems to represent the victory of the citizen class. However, if you really win, morality will be ruined. The negligence of others will openly become the reason for our treachery and moral destruction. Because we missed an important link in the process of derivation, that is, the balance of social interests, respect for morality and awe of law, and the trial of behavior public opinion after self-integration.
Yes, most people will take this money, which is human nature and the product of class contradictions. But what if the money is not from the bank, but from ourselves? If there is a hole in the safe where I hide my money, can everyone take it all? If so, are we willing to do it ourselves? Getting a negative answer can make us understand that the negligence of others is only an excuse for us to violate morality, not a reason.
As contemporary college students, they will live in a society with advanced legal system and developed civilization. They should be protected by law and should defend their morality. Through the Xu Ting incident, maybe we should have at least three Don 'ts:
First, get something for nothing, please don't infringe on others.
Second, please don't be indifferent to the violation of others.
Third, even if it violates morality, please don't trigger the law.
The public's mentality shows that we are far from civilization, and there are still many contradictions in our society. This road needs us to go on, and this forest needs our own care.
end
Absolutely original. Where's 50 gold?
Hehe, I hope it helps you.