A few days ago, the case of Ms. Cao accidentally hitting and killing an animal while fleeing in her car did not have a court verdict in the second trial, and the family of the abuser refused to be interviewed. The case originated from the abuser Liu’s unfounded suspicion that Ms. Cao was having an affair with her female friend Wang on May 20, 2024, which led him to brutally beat Ms. Cao for three hours! Liu also threatened Ms. Cao with a knife afterward, demanding she confront Wang, and warned that if she couldn’t find Wang, he would kill her. However, Liu himself was out dining with his friends that day and only returned early the next morning, making his alleged infidelity more plausible. During the three hours Liu was beating Ms. Cao, neither her mother nor her aunt, who was called by her mother, tried to stop the violence; instead, they watched indifferently as Liu drove away with Ms. Cao, allowing her to continue suffering. It is evident that these people did not regard Ms. Cao as an equal family member but merely as a tool for Liu’s abuse and venting. During the assault, Liu even stripped Ms. Cao’s lower clothing, engaging in extremely heinous humiliation. Liu’s beating caused Ms. Cao’s eardrum to rupture and her pancreas to tear, with injuries to her ribs, left kidney, abdomen, intestines, spleen, stomach, and other areas, which remain serious even a year later, requiring her to use a fluid bag. In such a life-threatening situation, Ms. Cao finally seized the opportunity to escape from this beast’s claws. When Liu blocked her in front of the car, she braked and turned away in time, without any intention to kill her. However, the first-instance court believed that
This case was caused by a marital and family dispute. According to the examination records of Ms. Cao’s phone, she indeed had ambiguous words with an extramarital partner, bearing some responsibility for the incident.
The first-instance court’s claim of “family dispute” is a reversal of facts, blaming Ms. Cao for the consequences of Liu’s evil deeds. As Ms. Cao’s father stated, “My son-in-law always apologizes and comforts my daughter after beating her, even promising in front of them. My daughter has always compromised for the children.” Liu used the classic tactic of feigning remorse to deceive Ms. Cao into trusting him, so he could continue to enslave her. In reality, after repeated violence from Liu, Ms. Cao had long lost any love for him, being only bound by Confucian ideas and trapped in an old family environment full of danger, requiring constant vigilance. Liu has no proper job and comes from a relatively wealthy family. During the assault, his mother and aunt did not intervene, indicating that Liu was also raised under this reactionary feudal family environment, spoiled at home and an extreme individualist parasite. That is why he dared to trample on Ms. Cao’s life so brazenly. Moreover, the first-instance court shamelessly defended this damned abuser, claiming that when Ms. Cao drove away, the beating had stopped and there was “no real danger,” and sentenced her to 11 years in prison for intentional homicide. Ms. Cao’s mother lamented, “Even fleeing for my life is a crime. Do we have to wait to be beaten to death, killed, until the body cools down to be considered innocent?” Ms. Cao’s father revealed that in the second trial, the prosecution claimed that her beating lasted three hours, and that not begging for mercy does not count as domestic violence; they also claimed that the victim holding a knife did not point it at her wife, and that Ms. Cao did not beg for mercy or call the police when fleeing, indicating her harm was not serious. The verdict from the first-instance court is a complete mockery of the people, playing with facts as if they were fools, similar to how the court’s judgment on self-defense is overly harsh, favoring the perpetrator and disadvantaging the victim. In this case, it was Liu’s inability to continue attacking that was reversed as “the beating had stopped.” But isn’t “the beating had stopped” precisely because Ms. Cao escaped urgently, and Liu had no chance to continue assaulting her? The court’s verdict is simply whitewashing Liu, misleading the public into thinking he no longer wanted to beat Ms. Cao. However, when Ms. Cao was fleeing for her life, Liu still stood in front of her car, attempting to force her to stop—not to continue violence, but to calmly talk with the severely injured Ms. Cao? Liu’s death was entirely due to his attempt to continue his violence and suffering the consequences himself. If he does not die, Ms. Cao is very likely to perish at his hands. At that point, the court will inevitably, like in the Xu Yuan case, come up with various ways to reduce his sentence or even declare him not guilty (!). Moreover, in the second trial, after reviewing surveillance footage, the prosecution still brazenly distorted facts with extreme conclusions like “not begging for mercy does not count as domestic violence,” provoking public outrage and once again exposing the shamelessness of the legal system in defending abusers. Such conclusions are not due to misjudgment by a local legal authority or individual fault but are rooted in the extreme fascist patriarchal society of Zhongxiu. To maintain male oppression and dominance over women, and to uphold the unequal status of “husband as asset owner and wife as proletariat” (from The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State), all levels of legal agencies have historically been committed to ruthlessly damaging the legitimate interests of oppressed women and protecting the heinous interests of fascist male chauvinists. From sexual harassment and rape to fatal abuse, the powerless status of women in Zhongxiu society has long been intolerable for anyone with basic compassion. In this case, although Ms. Cao narrowly escaped, after suffering severe physical injuries, she still faces a long and unreasonable sentence from the reactionary Zhongxiu court. Women who are murdered by domestic violence not only lose the chance for liberation but also bear the slander and defamation of abusers and fascist male chauvinists in society. If we do not clear their injustices, how can we gather the strength of half the population—women—and overthrow this extremely barbaric and dark Zhongxiu state, so that all oppressed people can be truly liberated? 驾车逃离案二审：播放监控视频，女子被扒光衣服殴打，二审细节流出惹质疑_搜狐网