I think that proposing the concept of being innocent and innocent is a hypothetical proposition and the expression is very incomplete. At the same time, it is still a hypothetical reasoning with insufficient preconditions and contains logical errors. There is no necessary negative logical relationship between acting bravely and not committing a crime; because these are two different levels. Acting bravely is a concept in the moral category, while crime and non-crime are concepts in legal norms. Simply confusing them together is obviously inappropriate. The accurate statement should be: Are those who act bravely and cause casualties of illegal or criminal suspects guilty? Acting bravely is an ideal moral standard advocated by the moral tradition of the Chinese nation and has always been pursued by people. "The Analects of Confucius: For Politics" says: "Not doing what is right is not courageous." When you see what is just, you will do it bravely, even regardless of personal safety. This is a kind of great justice. Acting bravely for what is right belongs to the ideal morality within the scope of morality, has a higher moral level and ideological foundation, and has practical significance. A local government has specifically defined this: "Courage refers to citizens who do not bear specific responsibilities. In order to safeguard national interests, social welfare interests or the interests of others, they ignore personal safety and stand up to fight against illegal crimes. the act of fighting”. At the same time, we must also realize that acting bravely is an ideal morality, but it is not a morality of civic duty. The morality that must be observed is the morality of obligation. Doing things permitted by the law and abiding by the law are the bottom line of obligation morality. It is obviously unrealistic and unnecessary to require every citizen to have a high moral standard, have ideal morality, and have everyone act bravely when they see justice. However, citizens must abide by the law and are strictly prohibited from exceeding the legal bottom line, otherwise they will be punished and punished by law. This is the order and norm of modern society governed by law.

If the above argument is reasonable, then it should be the obligation of citizens not to cross the legal bottom line. Otherwise, no matter how noble the motivation and starting point of the behavior are, it may be immoral or even illegal. There is no exception for those who act bravely when they see justice. Therefore, the behavior and consequences of acting bravely are included in the scope of the law. The view that as long as you act bravely, you do not need to bear legal responsibility for any consequences, is an emotional and irrational view. In addition to a misunderstanding of the law, this sentiment also reflects a common doubt: How should one defend himself or others legitimately when he or she is unlawfully harmed? In a 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 believe that chasing and blocking criminals while driving and causing death or injury is self-defense, which shows that many people have a good habit of using the law to examine problems. But one thing has been overlooked. The arrest of gangsters who escaped after committing crimes and the implementation of defense to stop ongoing crimes are completely different concepts and categories, and the actions that can be taken are also completely different. Judging from the extensive reports on the incident, the behavior committed by the dead and injured gangsters was robbery rather than robbery, which was not fully consistent with the provisions of Article 20 of the Criminal Law. Zhang Dejun assisted the robbed woman in arresting the gangster, which is commendable, but the behavior he took caused casualties to the illegal intruder, which is obviously unnecessary and unnecessary.

The belief that as long as one is "acting bravely for justice", one can go beyond legal provisions without bearing legal consequences, or even abuse the right of legitimate defense, which will only lead to serious consequences such as exchanging violence for violence, and lead to acts such as lynching and retaliation. , causing greater social harm. This is not progress in the rule of law, but a regression. In a society without the rule of law, it is difficult to establish a good moral order and a law-abiding environment for citizens.