In Qin Yong's summary, Su Bai's statement...
Essentially addressed whether there was a specific connection between Guang Youzhi's act of bravery and the harm he had inflicted on Wang Qiang.
It linked the two together.
Since the Prosecution had stated...
That Guang Youzhi's conduct constituted an act of bravery, but that this did not negate the intentional injury inflicted on Wang Qiang.
Then Su Bai's defense needed to start from that point and argue against it.
Put plainly.
In the Prosecution's statement...
The grounds for finding Guang Youzhi guilty were that his actions constituted neither justifiable self-defense nor emergency avoidance of danger. On that basis, all the harm inflicted on Wang Qiang constituted intentional injury.
Then had Guang Youzhi acted in justifiable self-defense or emergency avoidance of danger?
No.
If not, then he was certainly guilty.
That was the Prosecution's logic.
Was that logic correct?
It was, in a sense, but also not?
Generally speaking, approaching a criminal offense from different angles could lead to different convictions.
Such was the case with Guang Youzhi's case.
How should one put it...
The examination of evidence just now had already established that Guang Youzhi had punched Wang Qiang while pulling him away.
That punch had not seriously injured Wang Qiang. The subsequent attacks had caused his serious injuries.
Looking at it from that angle, why had those subsequent attacks happened?
What had prompted Guang Youzhi's second attack?
Naturally, Wang Qiang had attacked him, so Guang Youzhi had fought back.
On that basis, if they started from Wang Qiang's attack on Guang Youzhi, would Guang Youzhi's actions constitute justifiable self-defense?
They could be called justifiable self-defense.
Because Guang Youzhi had not attacked Wang Qiang continuously from the outset, causing his serious injuries.
Rather, the serious injuries had resulted from the subsequent attacks, so