The law enforcement scene in Xinjiang has become a deterrent - gun-guarded police entrance "admonition" shooters triggered deep reflection about the defense situation

Recently, a video of law enforcement inside a residential house in Xinjiang has caused widespread attention on the network. video shows that several Xinjiang police officers (including police officers wearing the alarm number "010599") entered the residents' homes, including at least two police officers carrying long guns or anti-violence guns, to the people present to "legal information" and verbal warning.

In the video, a leading policeman wearing glasses pointed to the camera and warned: "If the video and recordings you shot, uploaded to the Internet to cause public opinion, or cause some illegal consequences, you will bear the corresponding legal responsibility, do you hear clearly?"

by *

The background of the video shows is not a complex crime scene, but more like an ordinary household: the indoor is equipped with electric fans, cold fans, easy beds and shoes. However, in this narrow residential space, a number of fully armed Xinjiang police officers are crowded, and even carry anti-violent guns. This highly unequal law enforcement gesture and force demonstration has caused strong attention and questioning in the "Focus on China" editorial department.

The editorial department of "Focus China" pointed out that the rights of people or ordinary citizens in the face of public power, often in the absolute disadvantage of information and resources. filming the law enforcement process (i.e. "supervision of public power") is the legitimate means for citizens to enjoy and protect their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law, but in the special governance environment of sensitive areas such as Xinjiang, often defined by the local law enforcement as "suspicious of lying", "incitement to public opinion" and even "crime against the law", thus encountering direct oral warning and psychological deterrence.

Deep analysis: the distinction of public authority and the rights defenses under "control of public opinion"

I. “asymmetric deterrence” and abuse of power by law enforcement tools

In the above video, the most striking is the scene of Xinjiang police carrying guns entering residential houses for verbal warning. The police, in a state of non-violent crime and non-emergency defense, demonstrate and hold guns exerting psychological pressure on citizens, reflecting the over-dependence of Xinjiang's grassroots law enforcement agencies in dealing with "instruments of violence" when dealing with defence rights or civil disputes. This unnecessary demonstration of force is often aimed not to "maintain order", but to deter defences by means of fear, thus renouncing the right to legitimate expression and supervision.

The Logical Paradox of “Public Opinion is Crime”

The key speech of the police officers in the video is that “if the uploading of the network causes public opinion ... will bear legal responsibility”.This highlights a typical pattern of thinking in the current grassroots governance – translating “solving problems” into “who solve problems” and equating “public opinion” to “instability factors” and even “irregular consequences”.

Under the principle of the rule of law, citizens publish their own experiences or law enforcement processes on the Internet, belonging to the exercise of the right to know, the right to express and supervision. If the law enforcement process is lawful compliance, public authorities should openly accept public supervision; however, to "create public opinion" as a pretext to deter citizens, not only blur the boundaries of "legal supervision" and "unlawful lies", but also with vague methods of training deprive the people of the ultimate channel of defence.

1. Deterioration of grassroots rights defence environment and a crisis of trust

In the context of special stability in Xinjiang, the occurrence of similar incidents reflects that in some places under the extremely high-pressure assessment mechanism, it is very easy to see rights visitors and ordinary claimants directly as "controlled objects."When the responsibilities of the police from "protecting people's life and property security" to "blocking the dissemination of information and suppressing the voice of rights defenders", the basis of trust among police citizens will be further eroded.

In the absence of open and transparent supervisory mechanisms, this high-pressure situation may suppress the voice of individual cases in a short period of time, but in the long run, it aggravates the accumulation of social contradictions.