This legal provision... Qin Mu thought. It was also introduced a year ago, specifically targeting the widespread issue of unleashed dogs.

"What did you say?"

Cheng Chuxiao was dumbfounded. Her face filled with disbelief. She had only asked casually. In her memory, neither the Civil Code nor the Public Security Administration Punishments Law stipulated that dogs must be leashed.

But Qin Mu... he had spoken so confidently, directly citing the exact text of the legal provision with clear reasoning. He even specified the article number.

Unconvinced, she took out her cellphone and searched online for the legal provision Qin Mu had mentioned. The result was astonishing: it was exactly as he had described. It was Article Thirty, and the text precisely matched what Qin Mu had just recited!

"I just looked at your dog. It had no dog tag and wasn’t on a leash, which constitutes a serious violation of the law."

While she was stunned, Qin Mu’s voice continued, "According to the regulations, a fine of not more than 1,000 yuan should be imposed. Your failure to leash your dog is a violation of the law and is not protected by it. There’s a causal relationship between not leashing your dog and its death, so the fault naturally lies with you."

From a legal perspective, Qin Mu meticulously explained why she was at fault. Because Cheng Chuxiao’s actions were illegal and directly led to the loss, she was unequivocally the responsible party, not anyone else.

"Nonsense!" Cheng Chuxiao’s face flushed red. After a moment, she managed to retort. Trembling with anger, she pointed her finger at Zhang Qingyuan. "Even if, as you say, I was at fault for not leashing my dog, does that mean he wasn’t at fault for killing it?" she demanded indignantly. "By your logic, if I broke the law, could people just kill me on the street?"

What infuriated her most was the death of her dog. To this day, not a single person in the nursing home had shown any sympathy for her loss. They were all trying to find ways to excuse the dog killer. And this legal consultant... he even flat-out said there would be no compensation!

"Your logic is flawed." Qin Mu observed Cheng Chuxiao, who was on the verge of losing her composure, and said calmly, "Dogs don’t have human rights; they are considered property. Whereas you..." He glanced at her, paused briefly, then continued very seriously, "From a legal standpoint, are a person."

Cheng Chuxiao’s anger flared even more at his words. The implication was crystal clear. It was tantamount to calling her inhuman!

"For property loss, the party at fault must be determined," Qin Mu slowly continued. "However, for personal injury or death, the perpetrator of criminal harm is judged. The two cannot be generalized. Moreover, you’ve seen the video; the dog was chasing an elderly resident in our courtyard. This resident is 78 years old, aged and frail, and thus in a vulnerable position. Regardless of whether your dog intended to attack, to an ordinary person, an unfamiliar dog rushing towards them appears to be an imminent threat. Therefore, it’s understandable that our elderly resident killed it. This constitutes legitimate self-defense against an immediate danger. Or, perhaps, an act of urgent necessity."

After analyzing Cheng Chuxiao’s unlawful act, Qin Mu proceeded to analyze Old Zhang’s actions. Acting in self-defense when one’s personal safety is illegally infringed upon can be considered legitimate defense. And urgent danger avoidance, also known as emergency refuge, refers to actions taken out of necessity to protect the state, public interest, oneself, or others’ person, property, and other rights from imminent danger, even if it means harming a lesser legal interest. The key is that these are actions taken when personal or property safety is threatened, at the expense of another party’s lesser rights. Subjectively, the actor has no criminal intent or negligence; their objective is to protect a greater legal interest. Objectively, in emergencies where two legitimate rights conflict and only one can be preserved, the law permits sacrificing the lesser right to protect the greater one, an act which ultimately benefits society. Therefore, urgent danger avoidance is a legal act.

For instance, if someone is on the verge of starvation, they could kill an endangered animal to survive—be it a panda, a golden monkey, or a Yangtze alligator. They could eat it because doing so preserves a human life, and an animal’s life is far less valuable than a human’s.

Alternatively, consider a museum administrator who, when threatened by a thief holding a dagger to their throat, hands over a national treasure. This also qualifies as urgent danger avoidance, and the administrator should not be considered an accomplice to the crime. These are all legal acts; they should not be deemed illegal, let alone criminal.

Of course, this legal principle also touches upon another complex aspect of legal issues. The two examples above compare the value of people versus objects, and people versus animals.

𝘧𝓇ℯ𝑒𝓌𝑒𝑏𝓃𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘭.𝒸ℴ𝓂

But consider this: if a train is hurtling forward and the crew discovers the track ahead is broken, they might be able to switch to an alternate track. However, on that other track, a child is picking up stones. In such a scenario, sacrificing one person to save many creates an obvious logical paradox. Theoretically, the combined lives of everyone on the train would outweigh the life of a single child. Yet, life cannot be valued and compared in this manner, as doing so would be a desecration of human dignity.

Therefore, the lives and health of others cannot be sacrificed under the principle of urgent danger avoidance. The operator who makes such a choice would still bear criminal liability for voluntary manslaughter.