? ? ? On November 22, 2016, the breed aquatics of Guilin city door Wang Qing drives when chasing after two doubt to be like the thief that steal a dog, the autocycle out of control of the other side bumps on the tree, send hurt to death. Because Wang Qing is suspected of error causing person death pain by police punishment arrest, the procuratorate does not grant to approve after catch, release. The dead's family member refuses to obey sue, xiang Wangqing and claim for compensation of Xu Mou of another suspect that steal a dog more than yuan 348 thousand.
This year on May 30, wang Qing received the first instance report of court of the district that face laurel, the court thinks king of requirement of the dead's family member celebrates the request that compensates for jointly with Xu Mou, the fact is not clear, evidence is insufficient, the court does not grant to support, adjudicate the suit that rejects the person such as Hou Mou of the dead's family member requests, the case accepts fee 6523 yuan, by burden of the dead's family member.
Court of the district that face laurel thinks, focus of this case controversy is, whether the death of two the accused and Zhang Mou has fault or jural causal? Whether should two the accused assume corresponding liability to pay compensation?
Above all, whether to put in osculatory problem about two cars, classics appraisal, did not reach two cars are put in osculatory conclusion. Accuser calls two cars the be related that existence contacts several times, the court thinks evidence is insufficient, do not grant to approbate.
Next, accuser says Xu Mou extends a foot to play Wang Qing's car, but when front courtyard careful, xu Mou denies the car that played Wang Qing, accuser quote responsibility is half-baked, reason court kicks car be related of Wang Qing to telling to say Xu Mou stretchs a leg formerly, think evidence is insufficient, do not grant to approbate.
This thing causes numerous netizen attention on the network, opinions vary, to this thing, how do you look? [Think]
