"The property security guard used a stun device to prevent the delivery man from entering the community", and the security guard involved was detained; The lawyer said: property companies and takeaway platforms should empathize and improve the rules

Recently, a security guard in Lanzhou, Gansu Province, took out an electric baton to prevent the delivery man from entering the community. In response, the property involved had responded that the security guard was holding a flashlight, not an electric shocker. On June 30, the Chengguan Branch of the Lanzhou Public Security Bureau administratively detained Chen for 7 days on suspicion of illegally possessing police equipment (electric shock devices) and confiscated his electric shock devices.

On July 1, Liu Dongchen, a well-known public interest lawyer, argued that there was no clear legal basis for the identification of electric shockers as police equipment, and that the common contradiction between delivery workers and security guards was a conflict between the responsibilities of two different jobs.

Online video——

The security guard was suspected of holding an electric shock device to stop the delivery man

Property denial: "It's a flashlight, twenty dollars"

Recently, some netizens posted a video saying that the security guard of a community in Lanzhou, Gansu Province forbade the takeaway to enter, and after the conflict between the two sides, the security guard took out an electric shock device and faced the takeaway, and many people around dissuaded him.

Screenshot of the video

In the video, when the delivery man was dissuaded by many people around him, the staff in security uniforms walked straight to the delivery person, suspected of holding an electric shock device, and in the process of reaching out to the delivery person, there was a sound of electricity at the scene, and the people around hurriedly pressed the hands of the security guards to persuade both parties. At this time, the security guard stepped forward again with an electric shocker, and the delivery man retreated again and again.

In this regard, the video publisher said that the location of the incident was located in the Asia-Pacific Oriental Constellation Community in Lanzhou, Gansu Province.

On June 29, the property staff responded that it was noon when the incident occurred, and there was a group of children playing in the middle of the yard, "Our community is relatively small, so we do not allow delivery workers to enter to avoid children being injured." "The delivery man rode fast because the order was overtime, and the security guard asked the other party not to park the electric car in the community, and the delivery man was abusive, so the two sides clashed immediately," the video is taken out of context. "The security guard was holding a flashlight, about 20 yuan, not an electric shocker.

Police Notice——

The security guard was suspected of illegally possessing and using a police weapon (electric shocker) and was placed under administrative detention for 7 days

On June 30, the Lanzhou Public Security Chengguan Branch issued a "Notice" showing that on the afternoon of June 29, there was a video on the Internet saying that a property employee in a community in Lanzhou used an electric baton to threaten a delivery person, and the police intervened in the investigation in accordance with the law. After investigation, at 13:01 on June 29, Chen Mougang, a property employee of the Asia-Pacific Oriental Constellation Community in Chengguan District, Lanzhou City, was suspected of illegally possessing and using police equipment (electric shockers) in the process of preventing takeaways from entering the community.

On the morning of June 30, the Chengguan Branch of the Lanzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau gave Chen Mougang a punishment of seven days of administrative detention and confiscated his electric shock device in accordance with the law. The units and relevant personnel involved are under further investigation, and those who do have violations of laws and regulations will be held accountable in accordance with the law.

A reporter from Huashang Daily Gale News noticed that the property had previously denied the use of electric shock devices, but the police confirmed that it was suspected of illegally possessing and using police equipment (electric shock devices).

Netizens are hotly discussed——

Whether the community allows delivery workers to enter, netizens have different opinions

Some netizens believe that the contradiction stems from the conflict between the management system and the platform rules

This incident sparked heated discussions among netizens. Some netizens believe that the community is a closed area, and it is normal to strictly manage outsiders to enter the community, and it is recommended that a unified system be implemented across the country and strictly managed. There are also some netizens who hold the opposite view, believing that the social security environment is better now, and the purpose of residents ordering takeaway is to make it convenient, so it is reasonable for the takeaway to deliver to the home, and the property should not be blocked, and it is a bit "one-size-fits-all" to prohibit the takeaway from entering the community.

Some netizens believe that it is not easy for security guards and takeaways, and the takeaway brother will deduct money for overtime delivery, and the security guard will also deduct money if he does not prohibit the takeaway brother from entering the community according to the property regulations, the essence is the contradiction between the takeaway delivery rules and the property management specifications of the community, and I hope that the higher authorities can take effective measures to coordinate the contradictions between the two sides.

Lawyer's Perspective——

The conflict stems from the conflict between the responsibilities of two different job positions

To resolve the conflict, it is necessary to improve the system and change the platform rules in a targeted manner

Liu Dongchen, a senior partner of Shaanxi Zhongzhi Law Firm, legal counsel of the Shaanxi Alumni Association of Tsinghua University, and a well-known public interest lawyer, said that in this case, if the electric shock device is recognized as a "police weapon" in accordance with the law, then the security guard is suspected of illegally possessing and using the police weapon, and according to relevant regulations, the public security organ can be detained or warned for up to 15 days, and fined up to five times the illegal gains; where a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility is pursued in accordance with law. However, according to the mainland's Regulations on the Use of Police Instruments and Weapons, "police equipment" refers to "batons, tear gas, high-pressure water cannons, special explosion-proof guns, handcuffs, leg irons, police ropes and other police equipment equipped by the people's police in accordance with regulations", which does not include electric shock devices. Therefore, there is no clear legal basis for the police to punish the security guard for illegal possession and use of police equipment.

Liu Dongchen pointed out that the frequent contradictions between security guards and delivery workers are the conflicts brought about by the responsibilities of two different job positions: security guards should strictly manage the entry and exit of personnel in the community, ensure the personal safety and property safety of all owners, and maintain the living order of all owners, while delivery workers should timely and accurately deliver the items purchased by the owners to the owners, hoping to be able to enter and exit the community where the owners are located freely. The owner wants to stay at home and have the courier delivered directly to the door. The main contradiction is the conflict of rules caused by the different social division of labor, and its root cause is that the interests of all parties are different, and if the interests of all parties cannot understand each other, it will be difficult to properly resolve the contradiction.

Liu Dongchen emphasized that this contradiction can be resolved by improving management standards. The role of the property company and security guards is to strictly manage, not absolutely restrict, the entry and exit of outsiders. Therefore, it is possible to improve the registration system for delivery workers to enter the community, including the registration of the delivery person's ID card information, work permit information, and specific delivery address; Check the relevant takeaway information with the owner by phone to ensure that it is consistent with the information of the registered takeaway; Set up a special place to place express items, and the owners will collect them by themselves, etc., to standardize and manage the entry and exit of takeaways in and out of the community. From the perspective of takeaway platforms, it should be noted that some communities are forbidden to takeaways, so the platform reward system should be changed in a targeted manner, and takeaways should not be punished due to the mandatory provisions of the community.

Liu Dongchen suggested that delivery workers and security guards are both grassroots occupations, and neither position is easy. It is hoped that the platform party and the property company will be more tolerant of their subordinate employees and adopt some practical and effective methods, so that the two positions can understand each other, fundamentally reduce the occurrence of contradictions, and create a harmonious society.

Huashang Daily Gale News reporter Zhang Pengkang editor Dong Lin

(If there is any breaking news, please call the news hotline of Huashang Daily at 029-88880000)