SubscribeLog in
Connect with us

China Insight

Victim of Violence or Rage-driven Killer? BMW Owner Attacking a Bike Driver Stabbed to Death with Own Knife

The BMW driver pulled a long knife to stab the biker, but the knife killed himself instead.

Gabi Verberg

Published

on

A road rage incident occurring in Kunshan, Jiangsu province, has become a trending topic on Chinese social media this week, when the driver of a BMW pulled a knife to attack a man riding a bike. Unexpectedly, it was the BMW driver who turned out to be a victim of his own violence. Is this a case of “self-defense” (防卫过当) or “intentional injury” (故意伤害)?

An incident in which a BMW driver hit a man on a bike was captured on surveillance cameras and attracted major attention on Weibo and Wechat this week.

Update: Video link here (YouTube) (NOTE! Viewer discretion advised, this video is the direct surveillance video and is not blurred.)

The incident occurred in the night of August 27 in Kunshan, Jiangsu, when a BMW switched from the car lane to the bicycle lane, colliding with a man driving his bike, who seemingly refused to give way.

Two men then stepped out of their BMW vehicle to confront the cyclist, with one man going back to his vehicle, suddenly pulling out a long knife.

The moment the BMW switches to the bike-lane is captured by surveillance cameras from one angle (the incident was captured from two different angles).

Circulating videos of the incident show that the BMW driver tries to attack the bike driver with the knife, the bike-driver (in white shirt) seemingly not fighting back.

Electric bike driver (white shirt) is attacked by the BMW driver with a knife.

In the midst of the fight, however, the BMW owner suddenly lets the knife slip out of his hands, after which the bike owner quickly picks it up. With the knife in his hands, he now starts attacking the BMW driver.

Tables are turned when the bike driver picks up the knife and goes after his attacker.

Various videos (another angle here) show how the bike driver runs after the man, hitting and stabbing him with the knife at least five or six times.

The electric bike driver hits the BMW driver with the knife for the fifth time.

When the police and rescuers arrived at the scene, the BWM driver had already died from his injuries, Kunshan authorities stated.

According to various sources, the man had been drinking before stepping into the car.

 

“I support the bike driver. He is not guilty; this is justifiable defense. He did well.”

 

In response to the incident, a hot discussion sparked on Chinese social media, where a main point of discussion was whether or not the stabbing, which led to the death of the BMW driver, could be called a “legitimate act of self-defense.”

Some netizens argue that the bike owner acted in self-defense, and therefore must not be held criminally responsible for his death. In doing so, many refer to Article 20 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, which states that people who act out of “legitimate defense” to protect themselves against personal danger should not bear criminal responsibility.[1]

The question is whether the cyclist exceeded the necessary limits to defend himself.

In the Legal Evening News, lawyer Zhou Baomin (周保民), a partner of the Beijing Asia-Pacific Law Firm, states that the bicycle owner might in fact be held responsible for intentional injury and death.

Zhou argues that the video shows that the bicycle rider chases the BMW driver once he gets hold of the knife. At that point, the BMW owner clearly wants to escape, and is not attacking the man anymore – making the stabbing incident one of attack instead of defense.

Although the fatal stabbing is not visible in the videos, the bike rider stabs his attacker many times, which, according to lawyer Zhou, also goes beyond self-defense, since it would require a situation in which the one being attacked is powerless.

Zhou further states that causing deliberate injury leading to death is generally sentenced with more than ten years in prison or the death penalty. However, they add, the supposed fact that the cyclist is not committing a premeditated crime and that he does not own the lethal weapon, are factors that would be taken into consideration by the court.

Most netizens still feel sympathy for the bike owner, saying: ‘If you encounter such a situation, between life or death, the desire to survive will dominate everything. I think that the bicycle owner is not crazy. If he hadn’t defended himself, it would have been him who would have been stabbed to death instead.”

Many Weibo users express their hope that the man will not be punished too severely for his deed, with some even writing: “I support the bike owner. He is not guilty; this is justifiable defense. He did well.”

 

“There are very few purely good or bad people. Most people are neither very good nor very bad.”

 

The appearance and background of the BMW owner also seem to play a role in netizens’ perceptions of the events.

Various media sources report that the deceased man, who is now dubbed ‘BMW Guy’ (Bǎomǎ nán 宝马男), was the 36-year-old infamous ‘Liu Hailong (刘海龙), commonly known as ‘Brother Long,’ who was known to have a criminal record.

But in March of this year, this same man, as Sina News reports, also was allegedly rewarded a certificate of Justice and Courage (见义勇为奖励) from a Kunshan foundation for giving out valuable information to the police about drugs trafficking.

However, many Weibo users write: “Having a long knife in your car that you can use whenever needed – is that what you call being prepared to be brave and handle in the name of justice?!”

Or: “Still talking about his behavior being justified and courageous? Why not talk about him being jailed five times?”

And: “If a person like this, who has the habit of stabbing and driving while being intoxicated by alcohol, with a criminal record as thick as a book, still has recently gained recognition from the government [for his justice and courage], then this is not the tragedy of the people involved in this matter, it’s the tragedy of this country; a tragedy of society.”

But there are also those who express a more nuanced opinion, writing: “Come on, are you all primary school students? It’s not all black or white, not being a very good person doesn’t mean you are a bad person. Most people are grey; they have a good side and a bad side to themselves. There are very few purely good or bad people. Most people are neither very good nor very bad. Could we please discuss such matters in a slightly more mature way?”

This case is currently under police investigation. Meanwhile, the hashtag “Man Chasing Biker with Knife is Killed Himself” (#追砍电动车主遭反杀#) has gathered over 390 million views on Weibo today.

UPDATE: August 30 17:00 (China time):

A day later, this topic is still among the biggest topics being discussed on Chinese social media, as more information emerges on the cyclist in this story. What’s on Weibo was the first news blog to cover this topic in English (just sayin’!), but now other foreign news outlets are following with more information, too.

China Daily USA reports that the cyclist is a 41-year-old man by the name of Yu.

Meanwhile, photos are circulating that show that Yu has injuries to his face. Netizens, siding with the cyclist, are nicknaming Yu “the Terminator of Brother Long”:

Yu is currently being detained by police and has no life-threatening injuries. The hashtag for this incident has now received over 670 million views on Weibo.

UPDATE: CYCLIST IS ACQUITTED!

By Gabi VerbergManya Koetse, with contributions from Miranda Barnes

[1]”In order to protect the state, the public interest, the personal, property and other rights of the person or others from being illegally infringed upon, and causing damage to the unlawful infringer, it is a legitimate defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. Unlimited legitimate defense refers to violent crimes committed in the situation of serious dangers to personal safety, and the use of defensive behaviors, resulting in unlawful infringement of human casualties. […] If the defense exceeds the necessary limit and causes severe damage, it shall be criminally liable, but the punishment shall be alleviated or exempted.”

Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us.

©2018 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.

Gabi Verberg is a Business graduate from the University of Amsterdam who has worked and studied in Shanghai and Beijing. She now lives in Amsterdam and works as a part-time translator, with a particular interest in Chinese modern culture and politics.

Continue Reading
6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Avatar

    Eric

    August 30, 2018 at 11:01 am

    “Justifiable defense” or “legitimate defense” is rarely seen in the law cases in China.
    Unless you are a Kungfu master and you are able to stop the thug without injuring him, you will have only two options:
    (a) keep yourself safe at once by injuring/killing the thug and let the “law” persecute you, or;
    (b) let the thug hurt you without any fight-back, and let the “law” connive at the thug.
    Now we see that the Chinese “law” is not protecting normal, law-abiding people. Instead, the law somehow becomes the criminals’ accomplice. Even if your life is threatened by intruders in your own room, the “law” is still very strict in granting you the right of justifiable defense.
    “When my life is threatened, the ‘law’ is absent; when I fight back to save or rescue myself or my family, the ‘law’ shows up at once.” says many Chinese netizens, feeling disappointed about their legislation and jurisdiction system.
    Because in China the most important thing is the authority’s power and reputation, not people’s lives…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

China Insight

The Tragic Story of “Fat Cat”: How a Chinese Gamer’s Suicide Went Viral

The story of ‘Fat Cat’ has become a hot topic in China, sparking widespread sympathy and discussions online.

Manya Koetse

Published

on

The tragic story behind the recent suicide of a 21-year-old Chinese gamer nicknamed ‘Fat Cat’ has become a major topic of discussion on Chinese social media, touching upon broader societal issues from unfair gender dynamics to businesses taking advantage of grieving internet users.

The story of a 21-year-old Chinese gamer from Hunan who committed suicide has gone completely viral on Weibo and beyond this week, generating many discussions.

In late April of this year, the young man nicknamed ‘Fat Cat’ (胖猫 Pàng Māo, literally fat or chubby cat), tragically ended his life by jumping into the river near the Chongqing Yangtze River Bridge (重庆长江大桥) following a breakup with his girlfriend. By now, the incident has come to be known as the “Fat Cat Jumping Into the River Incident” (胖猫跳江事件).

News of his suicide soon made its rounds on the internet, and some bloggers started looking into what was behind the story. The man’s sister also spoke out through online channels, and numerous chat records between the young man and his girlfriend emerged online.

One aspect of his story that gained traction in early May is the revelation that the man had invested all his resources into the relationship. Allegedly, he made significant financial sacrifices, giving his girlfriend over 510,000 RMB (approximately 71,000 USD) throughout their relationship, in a time frame of two years.

When his girlfriend ended the relationship, despite all of his efforts, he was devastated and took his own life.

The story was picked up by various Chinese media outlets, and prominent social and political commentator Hu Xijin also wrote a post about Fat Cat, stating the sad story had made him tear up.

As the news spread, it sparked a multitude of hashtags on Weibo, with thousands of netizens pouring out their thoughts and emotions in response to the story.

 
Playing Games for Love
 

The main part of this story that is triggering online discussions is how ‘Fat Cat,’ a young man who possessed virtually nothing, managed to provide his girlfriend, who was six years older, with such a significant amount of money – and why he was willing to sacrifice so much in order to do so.

The young man reportedly was able to make money by playing video games, specifically by being a so-called ‘booster’ by playing with others and helping them get to a higher level in multiplayer online battle games.

According to his sister, he started working as a ‘professional’ video gamer as a means of generating money to satisfy his girlfriend, who allegedly always demanded more.

He registered a total of 36 accounts to receive orders to play online games, making 20 yuan per game (about $2.80). Because this consumed all of his time, he barely went out anymore and his social life was dead.

In order to save more money, he tried to keep his own expenses as low as possible, and would only get takeout food for himself for no more than 10 yuan ($1,4). His online avatar was an image of a cat saying “I don’t want to eat vegetables, I want to eat McDonald’s.”

The woman in question who he made so many sacrifices for is named Tan Zhu (谭竹), and she soon became the topic of public scrutiny. In one screenshot of a chat conversation between Tan and her boyfriend that leaked online, she claimed she needed money for various things. The two had agreed to get married later in this year.

Despite of this, she still broke up with him, driving him to jump off the bridge after transferring his remaining 66,000 RMB (9135 USD) to Tan Zhu.

As the story fermented online, Tan Zhu also shared her side of the story. She claimed that she had met ‘Fat Cat’ over two years ago through online gaming and had started a long distance relationship with him. They had actually only met up twice before he moved to Chongqing. She emphasized that financial gain was never a motivating factor in their relationship.

Tan additionally asserted that she had previously repaid 130,000 RMB (18,000 USD) to him and that they had reached a settlement agreement shortly before his tragic death.

 
Ordering Take-Out to Mourn Fat Cat
 

– “I hope you rest in peace.”
– “Little fat cat, I hope you’ll be less foolish in your next life.”
– “In your next life, love yourself first.”

These are just a few of the messages left by netizens on notes attached to takeout food deliveries near the Chongqing Yangtze River Bridge.

AI-generated image spread on Chinese social media in connection to the event.

As Fat Cat’s story stirred up significant online discussion, with many expressing sympathy for the young man who rarely indulged in spending on food and drinks, some internet users took the step of ordering McDonalds and other food delivery services to the bridge, where he tragically jumped from, in his honor.

This soon snowballed into more people ordering food and drinks to the bridge, resulting in a constant flow of delivery staff and a pile-up of take-out bags.

Delivery food on the bridge, photo via Weibo.

However, as the food delivery efforts picked up pace, it came to light that some of the deliveries ordered and paid for were either empty or contained something different; certain restaurants, aware of the collective effort to honor the young man, deliberately left the food boxes empty or substituted sodas or tea with tap water.

At least five restaurants were caught not delivering the actual orders. Chinese bubble tea shop ChaPanda was exposed for substituting water for milk tea in their cups. On May 3rd, ChaPanda responded that they had fired the responsible employee.

Another store, the Zhu Xiaoxiao Luosifen (朱小小螺蛳粉), responded on that they had temporarily closed the shop in question to deal with the issue. Chinese fast food chain NewYobo (牛约堡) also acknowledged that at least twenty orders they received were incomplete.

Fast food company Wallace (华莱士) responded to the controversy by stating they had dismissed the employees involved. Mixue Ice Cream & Tea (蜜雪冰城) issued an apology and temporarily closed one of their stores implicated in delivering empty orders.

In the midst of all the controversy, Fat Cat’s sister asked internet users to refrain from ordering take-out food as a means of mourning and honoring her brother.

Nevertheless, take-out food and flowers continued to accumulate near the bridge, prompting local authorities to think of ways of how to deal with this unique method of honoring the deceased gamer.

 
Gamer Boy Meets Girl
 

On Chinese social media, this story has also become a topic of debate in the context of gender dynamics and social inequality.

There are some male bloggers who are angry with Tan Zhu, suggesting her behaviour is an example of everything that’s supposedly “wrong” with Chinese women in this day and age.

Others place blame on Fat Cat for believing that he could buy love and maintain a relationship through financial means. This irked some feminist bloggers, who see it as a chauvinistic attitude towards women.

A main, recurring idea in these discussions is that young Chinese men such as Fat Cat, who are at the low end of the social ladder, are actually particularly vulnerable in a fiercely competitive society. Here, a gender imbalance and surplus of unmarried men make it easier for women to potentially exploit those desperate for companionship.

The story of Fat Cat brings back memories of ‘Mo Cha Official,’ a not-so-famous blogger who gained posthumous fame in 2021 when details of his unhappy life surfaced online.

Likewise, the tragic tale of WePhone founder Su Xiangmao (苏享茂) resurfaces. In 2017, the 37-year-old IT entrepreneur from Beijing took his own life, leaving behind a note alleging blackmail by his 29-year-old ex-wife, who demanded 10 million RMB (±1.5 million USD) (read story).

Another aspect of this viral story that is mentioned by netizens is how it gained so much attention during the Chinese May holidays, coinciding with the tragic news of the southern China highway collapse in Guangdong. That major incident resulted in the deaths of at least 48 people, and triggered questions over road safety and flawed construction designs. Some speculate that the prominence given to the Fat Cat story on trending topic lists may have been a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from this incident.

‘Fat Cat’ was cremated. His family stated their intention to take necessary legal steps to recover the money from his former girlfriend, but Tan Zhu reportedly already reached an agreement with the father and settled the case. Nevertheless, the case continues to generate discussions online, with some people wondering: “Is it over yet? Can we talk about something different now?”

Fat Cat images projected in Times Square

However, given that images of the ‘Fat Cat’ avatar have even appeared in Times Square in New York by now (Chinese internet users projected it on one of the big LED screens), it’s likely that this story will be remembered and talked about for some time to come.

 
UPDATE MAY 25
 

On May 20, local authorities issued a lengthy report to clarify the timeline of events and details surrounding the death of “Fat Cat,” which had attracted significant attention across China.

The report concluded that there was no fraud involved and that “Fat Cat” and his girlfriend were in a genuine relationship. Tan did not deceive “Fat Cat” for money; the transfers were voluntary. Furthermore, Tan returned most of the money to his parents.

The gamer’s sister is reportedly still being investigated for potentially infringing on Tan’s privacy by disclosing numerous private details to the public.

In the end, one thing is clear in this gamer’s tragic story, which is that there are no winners.

By Manya Koetse

– With contributions by Miranda Barnes and Ruixin Zhang

Independently reporting China trends for over a decade. Like what we do? Support us and get the story behind the hashtag by subscribing:

Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.

©2024 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.

Continue Reading

China Brands, Marketing & Consumers

A Brew of Controversy: Lu Xun and LELECHA’s ‘Smoky’ Oolong Tea

Chinese tea brand LELECHA faced backlash for using the iconic literary figure Lu Xun to promote their “Smoky Oolong” milk tea, sparking controversy over the exploitation of his legacy.

Manya Koetse

Published

on

It seemed like such a good idea. For this year’s World Book Day, Chinese tea brand LELECHA (乐乐茶) put a spotlight on Lu Xun (鲁迅, 1881-1936), one of the most celebrated Chinese authors the 20th century and turned him into the the ‘brand ambassador’ of their special new “Smoky Oolong” (烟腔乌龙) milk tea.

LELECHA is a Chinese chain specializing in new-style tea beverages, including bubble tea and fruit tea. It debuted in Shanghai in 2016, and since then, it has expanded rapidly, opening dozens of new stores not only in Shanghai but also in other major cities across China.

Starting on April 23, not only did the LELECHA ‘Smoky Oolong” paper cups feature Lu Xun’s portrait, but also other promotional materials by LELECHA, such as menus and paper bags, accompanied by the slogan: “Old Smoky Oolong, New Youth” (“老烟腔,新青年”). The marketing campaign was a joint collaboration between LELECHA and publishing house Yilin Press.

Lu Xun featured on LELECHA products, image via Netease.

The slogan “Old Smoky Oolong, New Youth” is a play on the Chinese magazine ‘New Youth’ or ‘La Jeunesse’ (新青年), the influential literary magazine in which Lu’s famous short story, “Diary of a Madman,” was published in 1918.

The design of the tea featuring Lu Xun’s image, its colors, and painting style also pay homage to the era in which Lu Xun rose to prominence.

Lu Xun (pen name of Zhou Shuren) was a leading figure within China’s May Fourth Movement. The May Fourth Movement (1915-24) is also referred to as the Chinese Enlightenment or the Chinese Renaissance. It was the cultural revolution brought about by the political demonstrations on the fourth of May 1919 when citizens and students in Beijing paraded the streets to protest decisions made at the post-World War I Versailles Conference and called for the destruction of traditional culture[1].

In this historical context, Lu Xun emerged as a significant cultural figure, renowned for his critical and enlightened perspectives on Chinese society.

To this day, Lu Xun remains a highly respected figure. In the post-Mao era, some critics felt that Lu Xun was actually revered a bit too much, and called for efforts to ‘demystify’ him. In 1979, for example, writer Mao Dun called for a halt to the movement to turn Lu Xun into “a god-like figure”[2].

Perhaps LELECHA’s marketing team figured they could not go wrong by creating a milk tea product around China’s beloved Lu Xun. But for various reasons, the marketing campaign backfired, landing LELECHA in hot water. The topic went trending on Chinese social media, where many criticized the tea company.

 
Commodification of ‘Marxist’ Lu Xun
 

The first issue with LELECHA’s Lu Xun campaign is a legal one. It seems the tea chain used Lu Xun’s portrait without permission. Zhou Lingfei, Lu Xun’s great-grandson and president of the Lu Xun Cultural Foundation, quickly demanded an end to the unauthorized use of Lu Xun’s image on tea cups and other merchandise. He even hired a law firm to take legal action against the campaign.

Others noted that the image of Lu Xun that was used by LELECHA resembled a famous painting of Lu Xun by Yang Zhiguang (杨之光), potentially also infringing on Yang’s copyright.

But there are more reasons why people online are upset about the Lu Xun x LELECHA marketing campaign. One is how the use of the word “smoky” is seen as disrespectful towards Lu Xun. Lu Xun was known for his heavy smoking, which ultimately contributed to his early death.

It’s also ironic that Lu Xun, widely seen as a Marxist, is being used as a ‘brand ambassador’ for a commercial tea brand. This exploits Lu Xun’s image for profit, turning his legacy into a commodity with the ‘smoky oolong’ tea and related merchandise.

“Such blatant commercialization of Lu Xun, is there no bottom limit anymore?”, one Weibo user wrote. Another person commented: “If Lu Xun were still alive and knew he had become a tool for capitalists to make money, he’d probably scold you in an article. ”

On April 29, LELECHA finally issued an apology to Lu Xun’s relatives and the Lu Xun Cultural Foundation for neglecting the legal aspects of their marketing campaign. They claimed it was meant to promote reading among China’s youth. All Lu Xun materials have now been removed from LELECHA’s stores.

Statement by LELECHA.

On Chinese social media, where the hot tea became a hot potato, opinions on the issue are divided. While many netizens think it is unacceptable to infringe on Lu Xun’s portrait rights like that, there are others who appreciate the merchandise.

The LELECHA controversy is similar to another issue that went trending in late 2023, when the well-known Chinese tea chain HeyTea (喜茶) collaborated with the Jingdezhen Ceramics Museum to release a special ‘Buddha’s Happiness’ (佛喜) latte tea series adorned with Buddha images on the cups, along with other merchandise such as stickers and magnets. The series featured three customized “Buddha’s Happiness” cups modeled on the “Speechless Bodhisattva” (无语菩萨), which soon became popular among netizens.

The HeyTea Buddha latte series, including merchandise, was pulled from shelves just three days after its launch.

However, the ‘Buddha’s Happiness’ success came to an abrupt halt when the Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau of Shenzhen intervened, citing regulations that prohibit commercial promotion of religion. HeyTea wasted no time challenging the objections made by the Bureau and promptly removed the tea series and all related merchandise from its stores, just three days after its initial launch.

Following the Happy Buddha and Lu Xun milk tea controversies, Chinese tea brands are bound to be more careful in the future when it comes to their collaborative marketing campaigns and whether or not they’re crossing any boundaries.

Some people couldn’t care less if they don’t launch another campaign at all. One Weibo user wrote: “Every day there’s a new collaboration here, another one there, but I’d just prefer a simple cup of tea.”

By Manya Koetse

[1]Schoppa, Keith. 2000. The Columbia Guide to Modern Chinese History. New York: Columbia UP, 159.

[2]Zhong, Xueping. 2010. “Who Is Afraid Of Lu Xun? The Politics Of ‘Debates About Lu Xun’ (鲁迅论争lu Xun Lun Zheng) And The Question Of His Legacy In Post-Revolution China.” In Culture and Social Transformations in Reform Era China, 257–284, 262.

Independently reporting China trends for over a decade. Like what we do? Support us and get the story behind the hashtag by subscribing:

Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.

©2024 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.

Continue Reading

Subscribe

What’s on Weibo is run by Manya Koetse (@manyapan), offering independent analysis of social trends in China for over a decade. Subscribe to show your support and gain access to all content, including the Weibo Watch newsletter, providing deeper insights into the China trends that matter.

Manya Koetse's Profile Picture

Get in touch

Would you like to become a contributor, or do you have any tips or suggestions? Get in touch here!

Popular Reads