He Left at 3 A.M. to Beat the Rain. A Gunshot Ended His Life.

On October 13, Mr. Cheng of Jingmen, Hubei, told reporters that his 64-year-old brother, also named Cheng, was shot and killed by an airgun while working in his own field in the early hours of the Mid-Autumn Festival.

Cheng’s two daughters had married and lived in the city. The elderly couple stayed in Macheng Town, Jingmen, tending more than ten mu of farmland. Before the festival, the daughters planned to pick up their parents and bring them to the city. Mr. Cheng recalled why his brother went out at night with a headlamp: “The weather forecast said it would rain. He wanted to finish the work quickly so that the next day he could reunite with his children for the Mid-Autumn Festival.”

Around 6 a.m. on September 25, Mr. Cheng’s son-in-law received a call from police. Mr. Cheng had been shot. When the family arrived, they found him lying in his field, blood beside him. Police told the family that a man from a nearby village had turned himself in. The man claimed he mistook Mr. Cheng for game and shot him.

The police certificate said Mr. Cheng was shot with a lead pellet at the border between two villages. The pellet caused cardiac tamponade and acute hemorrhagic shock. He died from those injuries.

The family found two penetrating gunshot wounds. One was on the left thigh. The other ran from the right shoulder to the left chest. A camera outside the family home could see Cheng’s headlamp from a distance. Surveillance footage showed that around 3 a.m., the light went out. A few minutes later, a pickup truck arrived, stayed for three or four minutes, and drove away. Mr. Cheng said the shooter fled and then returned. The ambulance arrived about an hour after the emergency call.

On the afternoon of October 13, police in Jingmen said the weapon was an airgun. The case is still under investigation.

The gun was already illegal

Even before the trigger was pulled, the suspect had crossed several legal lines.

Under Article 46 of the Firearms Control Law, a firearm is any gun that uses gunpowder or compressed gas to fire metal pellets or other substances through a barrel. It must be capable of causing injury, death, or loss of consciousness. The 2010 rules on firearm and ammunition identification say that a non-standard firearm which cannot fire standard ammunition is a firearm if its muzzle specific kinetic energy is at least 1.8 joules per square centimeter. In this case, the airgun and lead pellet caused cardiac tamponade and acute hemorrhagic shock. Its muzzle specific kinetic energy was far above that limit. Once the weapon is identified as a firearm, the crime of illegal possession of firearms is established. This offense does not require an actual injury or death.

Hubei has a province-wide, year-round hunting ban. The Hubei Forestry Bureau’s draft notice on prohibiting the hunting of terrestrial wild animals sets the ban from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2028, across the province. Several cities and districts have also issued all-area hunting bans. Echeng District, for example, bans night hunting with lighting inside banned areas. By using an airgun to hunt at night, the suspect was already suspected of illegal hunting even if he killed no animal. Court precedents also show that privately buying parts to assemble and illegally possess a controlled airgun can be a separate firearms crime if the quantity and power meet the legal standard.

The fight over “I thought it was an animal”

This is the main legal dispute. It decides whether the suspect faces three to seven years or more than ten years, life imprisonment, or even the death penalty.

Negligent homicide under Article 233 of the Criminal Law applies when the actor should have foreseen that his conduct might cause another person’s death but did not foresee it because of negligence, or foresaw it but lightly believed it could be avoided. If the suspect truly could not see clearly at night and mistook the headlamp for the reflection of game, and if nothing else was unusual, the case could fit this offense.

Indirect intentional murder under Article 232 applies when the actor knew his conduct might cause another person’s death but allowed that result to happen. The difference is whether the actor opposed the death or was indifferent to it.

Three details matter because they bear on what the suspect knew.

First, how identifiable was the headlamp? Cheng wore a continuously bright headlamp more than a meter above the ground. Its movement and light were very different from a rabbit’s eye reflection or a wild boar moving low to the ground. Could an experienced night hunter who could afford a high-pressure airgun and drove a pickup truck really fail to tell a human lamp from an animal’s eyes? That question must be answered with the scene inspection, the light source position, and the suspect’s statements. Lawyers in similar cases have said that when an actor knows or should know people may be in the area but still carries a lethal airgun to hunt, the conduct may amount to indirect intent under criminal law.

Second, how did two wounds happen? One shot could be a mistake. Two shots mean the suspect fired again. If the first shot already brought the target down, why did he fire a second time? Ballistics, scene evidence, and his account must reconstruct this.

Third, what happened in the missing three hours? This is the decisive window. Under the prior conduct theory, when an actor’s own conduct puts another person in danger, the actor gains a legal duty to rescue. If the suspect got out after shooting, saw that he had hit a living person, then abandoned the victim and drove away to avoid responsibility, the act could shift from negligent homicide to indirect intentional murder by omission. Precedents show that when an actor creates a duty to rescue through prior conduct and then lets the harmful result happen because he fears exposure, the mental state is not negligence but indirect intent.

What similar cases show

Recent cases give a sense of sentencing.

In 2021 in Dongxiang, Fuzhou, Jiangxi, a defendant was convicted of illegal hunting and negligent homicide. The combined sentence was one year and nine months in prison.

In 2017 in Zhangping, Fujian, a defendant was convicted of negligent homicide and illegal possession of firearms. The combined sentence was four years.

In 2019 in Pingxiang, Jiangxi, a defendant was convicted of negligent homicide and illegal possession of firearms. The combined sentence was three years and three months.

In 2023 in Shandong, a defendant was convicted of negligent homicide and illegal possession of firearms. The combined sentence was five years.

In 2021 in Jiangxi, a defendant was convicted of negligent homicide, illegal possession of firearms, and illegal hunting. The combined sentence was four years and six months.

Within the “negligent homicide plus illegal possession of firearms” framework, combined sentences usually fall between three and five years. If the suspect is found to have committed indirect intentional murder, even with surrender as a mitigating factor, the starting point is more than ten years. That gap explains why the suspect insists he mistook Cheng for game.

What the family still wants to know

So far, Jingmen police are still investigating. The family has raised questions that have not been answered. What kind of gun was it? Where did it come from? What exactly happened? Why were there two wounds? Who made the emergency call? The answers matter for a fair case and for the family.

Mr. Cheng recalled that his brother went out with a headlamp at night because “the weather forecast said it would rain. He wanted to prepare the field for autumn sowing so that the next day he could go see his children with peace of mind.” The headlamp was meant to light the ground under his feet. It was mistaken for the eyes of game. The lamp went out at 3 a.m. The case now turns on what the shooter saw, what he did next, and what the law calls it.