The action of police in Lanzhou is by all means improper. After being placed on high alert by a report of the so-called victim, the police did a lot preparatory work, including summoning up a sniper to shoot the suspected criminal when necessary. These were all constructive, although it turned out that Jiang did not have explosives with him. The situation dictated that the police consider two scenarios. First, Jiang Yunchun had 
explosives, which he could ignite at any time. Second, Jiang lied about carrying explosives to threaten his debtor. But Jiang should not be shot dead under either situation.
Under the worse hypothetical scenario-had there were explosives on Jiang Yunchun-then Jiang was a great danger when he was at Zhang apartment. At that time, the police were justified to take any action they deemed necessary when attempts at negotiating with Jiang failed. However, when Jiang had walked out of Zhang apartment with the money, he had given up using explosives as threat and the police had other alternatives to shooting him. Shooting him under such circumstances is against the preconditions for justifiable homicide.
Life, including that of suspect criminals, is the most precious thing. If the police intend to kill anyone, it should go through a strict and complicated decision-making process. In China, the right of life is highly respected by state and society. Even for those who have committed a felony, their life can be taken away after two trials. The police showed a respect for life in the initial stage, but later they failed to give enough respect to Jiang life.
In terms of legislation, the shooting has gone beyond the limit of justifiable defense. The most important precondition for justifiable defense is substantive unlawful infringement on public safety. There was no substantive unlawful infringement when Jiang was shot dead (especially since he was out of Zhang house). The judgment of police was made according to conjecture, whether it was based on description of victims or their own observation. If we project that police went beyond the limit of justifiable defense due to a miscalculation, then they had conducted a preemptive defense.
Then how to judge the responsibility of the police in case of preemptive defense? The first question to consider is whether a police officer kills someone intentionally or not? If the answer is yes, this action constitutes an intentional crime. If the answer is no, this action belongs to criminal negligence. Besides these two situations, the third situation is that the police officer is neither intentional nor negligent; then the resultant loss of life is an accident, for both the victim and the police officer. The compensation of loss will be repaid through civil procedures.
As for Jiang case, the first thing to investigate is whether the sniper shot Jiang of his own free will, under the instruction of the commander or in accordance with arrangements made beforehand. If what the media reports are true, the police in Lanzhou committed an act of criminal negligence. If a police commander ordered the sniper to shoot Jiang out of fear of being responsible for an explosion, it might be considered an abuse of power.
Since a life was lost in this case and the commander was a high-ranking police officer, an investigation team should be set up by police to conduct an investigation and tell the public the truth.
Related Information
2. China
