What's wrong with this lawyer?!

```

"Moreover, the interrogation record also provides proof: my client was trying to go to the door to stop them and argue with those people, but was obstructed by three people who tried to forcibly remove him."

"Given the large number of people and the presence of heavy machinery, illegal infringement was in progress, and as my client was trying to stop it but was forcibly taken away, so he resorted to physical defense to protect his property from invasion. This should be recognized as legitimate self-defense..."

The reason is as such, so many people and machines coming to demolish my orchard; in my eyes, you all are one entity, and although I used a knife, the level of resistance was proportionate.

"Secondly, the verdict also acknowledges that my client Huang Licheng actively purchased knives, which fully demonstrates his criminal intent to provoke trouble."

"However, the interrogation record explicitly notes that before Huang Licheng bought the knives, village chief Ding Deshui and his brother-in-law had already visited Huang Licheng multiple times over contracting land issues, and Huang Licheng was slapped three times, one of which resulted in a police report, as evidenced by the police records."

"Before the forceful demolition, Ding Deshui even warned that if he didn't demolish it himself, the village would do it for him. Based on this, there is reason to believe that my client purchased knives to protect his own property from invasion!"

"Third..."

"To sum up, despite the collective owning the land, the village committee, as a grassroots organization, has no right to forcefully demolish, and my client's act of purchasing knives in advance to protect his property was justified and does not meet the standards for provoking trouble out of nothing."

In plain language, my use of a knife was with just cause, and since it was with just cause, it cannot be considered making trouble out of nothing, nor can it be classified as provocation."

"And according to the illegal actions of forceful demolition by the village committee, my client should be recognized as practicing self-defense..." Read latest stories on My Virtual Library Empire

Some of this content is from the application for a retrial, while the rest was added later by Old Tang, after all, when the court convenes you definitely need to refute based on specific issues.

The reason for ensuring it is recognized as self-defense is simple: to get the compensation money back.

Simply being found not guilty is not particularly difficult, after all, the charge was for provocation. As long as it is proven not to be provocation, that's enough.

So there are two requests, and both must be reasoned out: why it does not constitute provocation and why it should be considered legitimate self-defense!

Some netizens online are already confused; many don't like lengthy expositions as they prefer quick and direct content on the internet.

But still, some people have listened carefully.

"Damn, Lawyer Tang's argument makes so much sense; the large group involved in the demolition can indeed be seen as a single entity!"

"Can the media stop misleading us? I actually thought it was three unarmed men against one; turns out they hired so many people, so I see no problem with the resident fighting back!"

"Exactly, it took so much effort for years to grow the fruit trees and just as they began to make money, they come to demolish it. I'd fight back too if it were me!"

Although there are many legal ignoramuses and some people may not be highly educated, everyone has a basic feeling, which has nothing to do with the law; it is derived from law, morality, among other factors.

It's obvious; this is my livelihood. If you don't want me to thrive, then I'll fight you with my life, a very simple and straightforward idea!

These aren't issues that legal scholars or law professors can solve by lecturing at length on legal theories; at the end of the day, the law can't treat people like machines.

Of course, among legal experts, many also agree with Tang Fangjing's view.

They should indeed be considered as a whole, whether based on logic or reality, you must take these people into account.

Meanwhile, in Magic City, Chen Jiaquan, using his newly registered alias "Professor Chen in Law," voiced his opinion: "How can you possibly consider it to be just three people acting alone? The crowd standing by is also a factor!"

"I don't know what my colleagues are thinking, have you become so engrossed in law that you've lost all humanity? Don't you think that so many people digging up trees and watching wouldn't affect the involved party? Put your hand on your heart and ask yourself, what would you do in their position!"

It's no surprise that it's Professor Chen; even though he switched to an alias, his broadside is still powerful, and he quickly got into arguments with a few colleagues, attracting significant attention.

In the office, Chen Jiaquan typed his responses and laughed joyfully, oblivious to anyone's disapproval, confident that following Director Tang's lead was the right decision.

What? I criticized him online before? Don't talk nonsense, or I'll sue you for slander!

As for Professor Chen's view on the case, that remains unknown.

You only need to know one thing: with law, if you want to win, you can always find a reason. Just like the language-loving Dean Chen once said, "the ultimate interpretation of the law rests with me."

Unfortunately, in addition to being a linguaphile, Dean Chen also likes to speak the truth...

Anyway, even the layman can tell that what they're saying makes sense.

As for Wang Jing, she is currently at odds with her advisor.

Stressed by her thesis, Wang Jing is enjoyably confrontational.

On the other side, Professor Du in his office is turning blue from being argued with. He feels furious, wanting to berate anyone he sees; those colleagues online are too impolite!

```