Chengdu Police Used Tear Gas to Attack Two Peasants, Court Rules Police Actions Were Legal

作者:bohui | 来源:64tianwang

chinese 成都催泪瓦斯袭击两农民 法院判决警方合法

[Tianwang Sichuan April 20, 2012] This afternoon, the Wenjiang District, Chengdu petitioner Liu Qiong informed the China Tianwang Human Rights Center the Chengdu Intermediate Court had rejected the law suit brought by two peasant rights protection representatives.

In the decision, the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court the alleged illegal actions by the Chengdu Wenjiang District Public Security Bureau fell within the legally stipulated official powers of public security organs in carrying out public security administrative punishments according to the law. According to the stipulations of the law, if citizens believe that their rights have been infringed upon, they should go through the legally-stipulated legal processes to obtain redress. In this case, Liu Qiang who cursed, shoved, threatened and in other ways illegally impeded workers from the Wenjiang District, Chengdu, Yongquan Street Committee Office in their task of demolishing a building. Therefore the reasoning behind the appeal by Liu Qiang and Ren Hengchao cannot be accepted.

According to sources, on July 13, 2011, when the legal property of two households belonging to Liu Qing and Ren Hengchao respectively were being demolished, Wenjiang District, Chengdu police used drug equipment to shoot tear gas at Liu Qiang and Ren Hengchao as reported previously as "Chengdu Police Use Anesthetizing Agents in a Forced Demolition and Take Two Peasants into Custody" 【成都警方动用麻醉剂强拆 抓走两村民】. In this action, the authorities mobilized many police to surround the site and then public security took the two into custody.

The China Tiangwang Human Rights Center Legal Department believes that the Chengdu Intermediate Court disregarded the facts in ignoring that the police illegally used their equipment to harm Liu Qing and Ren Hengchao and in the court's determination that Liu Qiang and Ren Hengchao used improper means to defend themselves against the law enforcement officials. The court's determination of the facts of this case is seriously in error and should be reconsidered.