13Evidence A

No matter how angry you are, never target innocent people: deliberately driving into a crowd or committing violence in public is classified as endangering public safety by dangerous means, carrying a minimum sentence of three years; if anyone dies, the penalty is death.

Intentionally driving into a crowd or attacking people in public constitutes endangering public safety by dangerous means. Even if no one is injured, the offender still faces at least three years in prison. If fatalities occur, the sentence rises to ten years or more, life imprisonment, or death. In the Zhuhai case, Fan Weiqiu, dissatisfied with the divorce settlement, drove his car into a crowd exercising at a sports center, resulting in 35 deaths and 43 injuries; he was sentenced to death and executed.

Cost

There is no monetary cost involved. The real challenge is…

Benefit

Article 114 of the Criminal Law states: “Whoever commits arson, breaches a dike, causes an explosion, releases…

Cost

There is no monetary cost involved. The real challenge is suppressing such impulses when you’re enraged.

Benefit

Article 114 of the Criminal Law states: “Whoever commits arson, breaches a dike, causes an explosion, releases toxic, radioactive, or infectious agents, or endangers public safety by any other dangerous means, without causing serious consequences, shall be sentenced to three to ten years in prison.” Thus, even when no injuries occur, the minimum penalty is three years. Article 115 adds that if serious injury, death, or major property damage results, the sentence becomes ten years or more, life imprisonment, or death. Official case example: Fan Weiqiu, disillusioned by his failed marriage and unhappy with the divorce terms, resolved to vent his anger by driving into a crowd. On the evening of November 11, 2024, he crashed his vehicle into exercisers at Zhuhai Sports Center, killing 35 and injuring 43. He was convicted under the aforementioned article and sentenced to death, with political rights revoked; the sentence was carried out on January 20, 2025 after Supreme Court approval. His grievance pertained solely to the divorce ruling; his victims were completely unrelated runners from across the country.

Original sources

全国人大 (1997). 刑法(第一百一十四、一百一十五条). https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/fl/201802/t20180206_364975.shtml;新华社 (2024). 广东珠海驾车撞人事件造成 35 人死亡 43 人受伤. http://www.news.cn/20241112/29c6af4f6ee4455b92832f3c2b13a93a/c.html(转珠海市公安局通报);最高人民检察院 (2024). 樊维秋以危险方法危害公共安全案一审宣判,判处死刑,剥夺政治权利终身. https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/zdgz/202412/t20241227_677757.shtml;最高人民检察院 (2025). 珠海驾车撞人案罪犯樊维秋被执行死刑. https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/zdgz/202501/t20250120_680196.shtml;全国人大常委会 (2025). 治安管理处罚法(2025 年修订,第二十九、五十条). https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/fl/202506/t20250627_699863.shtml

Open source link
Book note

Expressing thoughts like “I don’t want to live anyway” does not serve as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The Supreme People’s Court’s 2025 work report emphasizes “resolutely punishing with severity, speed, and strictness those who outrageously violate legal and moral boundaries.” Merely threatening to commit acts such as arson, explosions, or poisoning that endanger public safety and disrupt order can lead to detention from five to ten days and a fine of up to 1,000 yuan under the Public Security Administration Punishment Law (effective January 1, 2026). Similarly, sending threatening letters or otherwise endangering another’s safety is illegal, punishable by up to five days’ detention or a similar fine. Anyone entertaining such ideas should refer to item 14, which treats notions like “finding a scapegoat” as a medical emergency requiring immediate intervention.

My note