2005年12月7日上午10时30分,备受关注的“见义勇为案”在成都市成华区法院公开宣判,当法官宣布判决结果时,旁听席上响起震耳的掌声。法院认定,一死一伤的后果是抢劫疑犯罗军等人为摆脱追赶而高速行驶造成的,胡远辉、罗军实施抢夺行为后,张德军等人驾车追赶二人,只是意图将逃跑的犯罪嫌疑人扭送至公安机关。所以,张德军驾车追赶胡、罗二人的行为是合法、正当行为。被告人张德军无罪,不承担民事赔偿责任!判决结果公布后,很多人通过各种媒体对这一案件发表评论,但是其中有很多误读,需要予以分析和纠正。误读之一:法院的判决是在民意的左右下作出的。据报道,此案的旁听群众为见义勇为者拉起支持的横幅,判决后又为判决结果鼓掌和欢呼。于是乎,有些人就断言法院作出这样的判决是为了迎合 At 10:30 on December 7, 2005, the case of “courageous and courageous”, which attracted much attention, was publicly pronounced in Chenghua District Court in Chengdu City. When the judge announced the verdict, the applause broke out in the auditorium. Court ruled that the consequence of a death and a wounded robbery looting Luo Jun and others to get rid of chase and high-speed caused Hu Yuanhui, Luo Jun, after the robbery, Zhang Dejun and others drove two people to catch up, just intends to escape the suspect To the public security organs. Therefore, Zhang Dejun driving chase Hu, Luo two acts is legal and proper behavior. Zhang Dejun, the defendant, is innocent and does not assume civil liability. After the verdict was announced, many people made comments on the case through various media, but many of them were misinterpreted and need to be analyzed and corrected. Misreading one: the court’s decision is made under the opinion of the public. It is reported that the case of the crowd to listen to the courageous people to lift support banner, the verdict and then applauded the applause and cheers. Ever since, some people have asserted that the court made such a judgment in order to meet