In 2007 October, the defendant burned the traffic police on duty police case in Anyuan County three hundred town. I am the defendant Sun Wenwei's lawyer. The following is a statement of defense points.

   First, the defendant burned police cars and police cars were burned the causal relationship between the consequences, the prosecution evidence is insufficient. Suggestions on supplemental investigation.

   Although the defendant in the statement that a burning car's purpose and behavior, however, they are the fire is burning police cars, the defendant Sun Wenwei and Huang Chunhua's statement is not consistent with the.

   The defendant Sun Wenwei confessed: he saw the tires on fire and left the scene. (P8, P11, P13 evidence, P18). He preceded the defendant Huang Chunhua left the scene. (P11). Normally, the defendant Huang Chunhua's confession, and Sun Wenwei's statement consistent. The defendant Huang Chunhua confessed: he lit the fire, but no burning police cars. Did not see the police car on fire. (P23, P24, P27, P30).

   In addition to the two defendant burning car, there is no other people burning car? On this point, the two defendant's confession, and witness statements do not coincide with Wei Yun.

   Two the confession of the accused, in addition to their burning car, no other people burning car. However, the Wei Yun statement, there are third people burning car. (P37). In addition to the two defendant burning car, and wearing a yellow jacket, age thirty years old, the height 160 -- 170 cm, man of medium height (hereinafter referred to as the "third people) threw a fire to the police car. (P38, P42). The man obviously and the two defendants do not match.

   The witness Wei Yun only confirmed in addition to the two defendant fire outside the car, third people still burning car. The prosecution did not clarify who point burning police cars. Is the defendant point burning police cars, or third point burning police cars? Or is the two defendant point fire and third points of fire and burning police cars? Conclusion there are three: one is the defendant point burning police cars, third points of fire without burning police cars. Two is the defendant point fire without burning police cars, but third people at a police car on fire. Three is the defendant and the third person point of fire were burning police cars.

   If this is the first conclusion, namely the defendant point burning police cars, third points of fire without burning police cars, a defendant is convicted is deserve one's punishment. The investigation organ should also continue to seize this third people, investigate its intentional destruction of property (attempted) criminal responsibility of crime.

   If the second conclusions, namely the defendant point fire without burning police cars, but third people burning police cars, the defendant only intentional destruction of property shall be investigated for criminal responsibility of crime (attempted). According to China's "criminal law" the provisions of article twenty-third, the defendant can be accomplished crime shall be given a lighter or mitigated punishment. The investigation organ should also continue to seize the third person, shall be investigated for criminal responsibility in the crime of intentional damage to property.

   If the third conclusions, namely, the defendant and the third person point of fire were burning police cars, the defendant deserve one's punishment, shall be convicted. But the amount of crime should be the amount of loss 1/2. Because the defendants and third have no common purpose of the crime, the defendant cannot take responsibility for third of the consequences of the crime. The investigation organ should also continue to seize this third people, investigate its should bear the intentional destruction of property (accomplished) criminal responsibility of crime.

   In the above three conclusions are likely to be the existence of objective circumstances, the evidence points to is not the only. The evidence for a problem. The public prosecution organ needs supplementary investigation. If we ignore the evidence the objective existence of contradictions and doubts, concluded that the two defendant set fire to the police car, rather arbitrary. This is not a scientific and professional spirit.

   Vehicles and goods price appraisal conclusion two, amount of crime that defendant suspected of intentional destruction of the loss of authenticity legitimacy. Asked to identify. Prior to this, the defendant and the defendant has been proposed to re appraisal application. I insist on this application. Application listed five reasons. In addition, the case handling organ and the appraisal organ the destroyed vehicles as intact, can be normal use vehicles to identify value, logic is wrong. If the identification of the case handling organ and the appraisal organ of thinking, the defendant shall constitute a crime of destruction of means of transport. The authorities have identified the defendant constitutes the crime of intentional destruction of property, in fact, defendant constitutes the crime of intentional destruction of property, means that destroyed vehicles are not equivalent can be used for complete vehicle. Therefore, the destruction of the vehicle and the vehicle intact can use value is not the same. The case evidence, burned police cars were burned in the before, had been angry citizens from high over the bumps, and body hit with stones, bricks did not form (P37 Wei Yun statement). At this time, the police can not become the means of transport, is only the property.

   Three, the case inspiration:

   The trial of the case, regardless of the defendant, or the public security law enforcement agencies, is a profound lesson.

   The empty cavity has a pity the Huairou charity heart of justice, but the violence for violence with violence, finally get the opposite of what one wants. Destroys the harmonious social order, but also for their own life under the bitter fruit.

   The public security law enforcement office, this is a legitimate act of justice, because the choice of violence, law enforcement is not public understanding and protests about. Justice justified cast a shadow. For administrative law enforcement will be set up obstacles.

   Management and management are a pair of contradiction. The need to alleviate the contradiction, dredging, and not aggravate tensions, add fuel to the flames, hate begets hate, the intensification of the contradictions. Such conflicts in order to maintain the status quo, harmonious.

   Results: the case is not returned for supplementary investigation. The court decision defendant on probation. Just call me, don't send judgment for me.