The robber came into the house and came to my kitchen to get a knife, and I found him and beat him t

If the other party has a knife in his hand and threatens your personal safety, it is not excessive defense, it is legitimate defense, if the other party does not have a knife in his hand, it is excessive defense. You just have to prove that he has a knife in his hand, understand?

If you beat him to death with a stick, you are not guilty of a crime.

If after you hit him, he is no longer able to threaten you, and you continue to kill him, you are breaking the law!

It's important to have a few clicks or a few clicks!

The question you're asking is justifiable defense.

In accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Code:

Where an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement is taken in order to protect the state, the public interest, or the person, property, or other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement, and causes damage to the unlawful infringer, it is justified defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

Where legitimate defense clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes major harm, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but punishment shall be commuted or waived.

Whoever takes defensive action against an ongoing assault, homicide, robbery, rape, kidnapping, or other violent crime that seriously endangers personal safety, causing injury or death to an unlawful offender, is not considered to be in excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

So, the act of the robber you described is an act of burglary, and he has already slashed you with a knife, of course you can cut him, but if you have subdued him and continue to hack him to death for reasons such as venting his anger, then this act will be considered a crime, intentional homicide!

He was a burglary.

You are not criminally responsible for killing him in the course of your desperate fight with him.

The victim of an ongoing robbery has the right to unlimited defence.

For details, see paragraph 3 of Article 20, Section 1, Section 2 of Chapter 2 of the General Provisions of the Criminal Law, where an act of defense is taken against an ongoing assault, homicide, robbery, rape, kidnapping, or other violent crime that seriously endangers personal safety, causing injury or death to an unlawful offender, it is not considered excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

On the question of the burden of proof.

China's criminal law establishes the principle of presumption of innocence. The burden of proving guilt rests with the prosecution and not with the accused. As you said, if you can't provide any other evidence yourself, then the prosecution will certainly have no other evidence to convict you.

The public prosecution can only prove your guilt on the basis of the inquest and examination records at the scene, the defendant's confession and justification, the appraisal conclusion of the victim's casualties, kitchen knives, etc., and it is very difficult to convict you of intentional homicide when you are the only one who can provide verbal evidence.

In short, you don't want to get tangled between substantive and procedural issues.

"Justifiable defense" refers to the act taken to stop an unlawful infringement and cause damage to the wrongdoer in order to protect the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement. The following requirements must be met for justifiable defense to be established:

1. There is an actual unlawful infringement, which is a prerequisite for legitimate defense. Unlawful infringement refers to acts that violate the law and are harmful to society, including both serious illegal acts that constitute a crime, as well as illegal acts such as violations of the regulations on public security administration penalties that have not yet constituted a crime, and such illegal acts are objective and realistic. If there is no unlawful offense in reality, but the perpetrator believes that there is an unlawful offense and carries out the act of defense, it is not justified defense, but hypothetical defense.

2. The unlawful infringement must be ongoing. It means that the wrongdoer has already started to commit the infringement and the infringement has not been completed. The time when the unlawful infringement begins and lasts is the time when the perpetrator exercises legitimate defense.

3. The purpose is to protect the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from illegal infringement. Conduct that appears to be justified defense carried out without the purpose of defending legitimate rights and interests, such as defensive provocation, i.e., deliberately provoking or inducing the other party to commit an unlawful offense, and then inflicting harm on the other party under the pretext of legitimate defense, is not a case of legitimate defense but a criminal act.

4. The act of defense must be carried out against the unlawful aggressor, which is the object of legitimate defense, and the legitimate defense must be aimed at the target and against the unlawful aggressor himself.

5. The act of defense does not clearly exceed the necessary limit and causes significant harm, which is an element of the limit of the act and result of legitimate defense. The so-called necessary limit refers to the strength of defense necessary to effectively stop the unlawful infringement.

Excessive defences are acts of clearly exceeding the necessary limits and causing significant damage. Manifestly exceeding the necessary limit means that the strength of the defence is recognized by the general public as exceeding the strength necessary for legitimate defence. Significant harm refers to a defensive act by the defender that clearly exceeds the necessary limit, causing bodily injury or death to the unlawful aggressor or other persons, or causing other serious harm that can be avoided.

Excessive defense shall be criminally responsible.

If you defend too much, you will kill people, and of course you will break the law.

But it's also possible to get a not-guilty verdict, depending on your lawyer.

If the thief does not resist and you beat him, it constitutes intentional injury, and if the other party resists arrest, then you can defend yourself, but within a certain limit, if there is a danger to your life at the time, you can defend yourself in special justification, and only in this case can the perpetrator not bear criminal responsibility.

Marks of holding knives and fights can be identified.

Depending on the situation, it is possible that you are overly defensive, or you may be justifiable.

Since he is a robber, how can he not bring a murder weapon, and do you still need to go to your kitchen to get a knife? The act of justifiable defense is limited to the elimination of danger, as long as the other party is subdued, and exceeding this limit is excessive defense, and you will bear criminal responsibility.

As long as there is evidence that the robber is killing you with a knife, you will not bear legal responsibility if you fight him and kill him, and it is a legitimate defense. The Supreme Court's interpretation of justifiable self-defense clearly stipulates that the death of a person who is being committed is justified self-defense.

It is recommended that you immediately call the police to protect the scene, and the public security bureau will give a scientific appraisal of physical evidence.

Just in self-defense, don't break the law, but whether I say it or not, it depends on what the police say.