1, Liu Hailong's behavior belongs to the criminal law. Appraised by the public security organs, the machete held by Liu Hailong at that time was a double-edged knife with a length of 43 cm, which was a controlled tool. After the quarrel between the two sides, Liu Hailong took out a machete and cut it on Haiming, which seriously threatened his personal safety and could defend himself.
2. Yu Haiming's behavior does not belong to excessive defense. Liu Hailong's behavior has seriously violated the right to life of others, so he can take special defense. Yu Haiming's behavior includes unarmed resistance, stabbing with a knife, chasing and cutting with a knife. According to forensic identification, Liu Hailong died of hemorrhagic shock, which indicates that Hamming's second action led to his death. Therefore, Yu Haiming's third behavior should not be considered as excessive defense.
3, the legal provisions of self-defense. According to the provisions of the criminal law, in order to protect the public interest, the personal and other rights of oneself or others from the ongoing illegal infringement, the act of self-defense is not criminally responsible. Under special circumstances, taking defensive actions against violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape and kidnapping that seriously endanger personal safety, resulting in unlawful infringement of human casualties, is not excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.
Strictly apply the law in this case. The Kunshan case is considered as self-defense, which is a strict application of the law. Only the criteria that meet the cause conditions, time conditions, subjective conditions and restrictive conditions can be established. Through investigation and evidence collection, the public security organs found out the key facts of the case, including that Liu Hailong's behavior belongs to "murder" in the sense of criminal law, illegal infringement is a continuous process, and Yu Haiming's behavior is for defensive purposes, which proves that Yu Haiming's counterattack fully meets the statutory requirements.
5. To sum up, the anti-killing case in Kunshan was recognized as justifiable defense because Yu Haiming took reasonable defensive actions when he was seriously threatened, which were in line with the provisions of the Criminal Law on justifiable defense.