The police responded in the report that the criminal investigation officer's disciplinary issues have been investigated and he has been suspended. The suspect's family was introduced by an intermediary to have a dinner with the criminal investigators. During the dinner, the suspect's case was mentioned and they hoped to be taken care of. After the criminal investigators refused, an argument broke out. The suspect's family members beat the criminal investigators, who wanted to call the police, but were dissuaded by the intermediary and then left. That night, the suspect's family contacted the criminal investigators by phone, and an argument broke out again. The suspect's family recorded part of the content. These recordings are the source of the "threat video" posted online.
The motive of the suspect’s family is an insult to judicial fairness, and his ideas need to be criticized and educated by the law. In this case, the suspect's family acted with the intention of bribing public officials. He wanted the criminal investigators to use their power for personal gain and tolerated the suspect's criminal behavior through the "back door". The suspect's family members were impulsive and irritable. After being rejected by the other party, they resorted to violent means due to inappropriate language. Later, when the other party asked to call the police, they were afraid of being punished by the law, so they ended the matter with the mediation of a third party. That night, he felt guilty again and was worried that the other party would go back on his words, so he took the initiative to call him. During the period, the two sides argued fiercely. The criminal investigator said some extremely insulting and threatening words, which were recorded by him with ulterior motives through recording. Then he posted the recording on the Internet to cause oppression of public opinion. He wanted to confuse netizens who did not know the truth to stand up for him. He wanted to bite the other party through the recording and avoid the fact that he was unreasonable in this matter. He wanted to avoid beating the other party. punishment.
The criminal investigation officer was relatively innocent at the beginning of this matter. He acted with the concept of fairness and legality. It was correct to refuse the family members of the suspect who were unreasonable and had no legal concept. of. In the subsequent verbal argument, due to incomplete recording, it is not known what kind of quarrel happened between them. However, it can be seen from the exposed recording that there are still certain inappropriatenesses in the words and deeds of this criminal investigator, and he is suspected of threatening ordinary people with public power. He did not reason with the other party through fair and legal means. The reason may be that he was beaten by the other party and felt resentful, so he uttered the threatening words in the online recording, "wanting the other party to die." He has been suspended, which is considered a punishment for his inappropriate words and deeds.
It is undeniable that the ultimate cause of this incident is the suspect’s family. If he had not wanted to "take advantage of the relationship" or "take the back door", and if he had always believed in the fairness of the judiciary, this series of things would not have happened. Why do the suspect's family members first think of "making connections" when encountering this matter, instead of patiently waiting for the police's investigation results and fair handling by the police? To a certain extent, this reflects the possible existence of a bribery culture in the local area. Ordinary people have doubts about the fairness of the judiciary and do not believe that the judiciary can give them legal results.
Perhaps we should reflect on how ordinary people have lost their trust in judicial impartiality and how to restore and maintain public credibility.