Recently, there has been a rising trend of resistance against public officials, particularly in the field of traffic safety and order, with increasingly aggressive and violent characteristics.

It is no longer limited to mere insults or ordinary shoving; there have now been acts of using vehicles or pushing officials into life-threatening situations (such as driving head-on, pushing into the path of a truck…).

Given this reality, correctly identifying the nature of such acts for accurate handling is not only a requirement of criminal law science but also an urgent demand in judicial practice, to ensure deterrence and crime prevention.

From Administrative Violations to Signs of Particularly Serious Crimes

In criminal law science and real life, the boundary between crimes infringing upon life, health, dignity and crimes infringing upon administrative management order is sometimes defined by just a few specific circumstances in the objective act.

Typically, when a traffic violator exhibits non-compliance, struggles, shoves, resists… to escape or commits other acts to obstruct, the procedural agency often considers prosecution for the crime of “Resisting Persons on Official Duty” under Article 330 of the Penal Code.

The object of this crime is the order of administrative management, specifically the proper functioning of state agencies.

The offender commits the act with the purpose of obstructing the performance of duties, and subjectively, they usually do not intend to cause serious injury or death to the official.

However, when the act of resistance goes beyond the limits of the ordinary and contains the potential to directly endanger human life, the legal nature of the case changes completely.

A typical example is the act of using force (pushing, kicking) to move an official into the path of a moving car or truck; at this point, the vehicle is no longer merely evidence of an administrative violation, but becomes a “high-risk source of danger.”

Forcing another person into that source of danger demonstrates a different subjective mindset, requiring legal practitioners to consider it from the perspective of crimes against life, specifically the crime of “Murder” under Article 123 of the Penal Code.

When a competent adult uses force to push another person into the path of a truck, they must be aware that such action could cause the victim to be crushed to death or suffer serious injury.

Even if deep down they do not wish for the victim’s death (the main purpose is to escape), they have accepted the risk of that outcome to achieve their goal. This “acceptance” or “reckless disregard” is precisely the hallmark of the crime of “Murder” with indirect intent.

Judicial Practice and the Shift in Court Sentencing Trends

Over the past decade or so, observing judicial practice in Vietnam, a strong and decisive shift can be seen in the perspective of procedural agencies (investigative agencies, procuracy, courts) regarding this group of acts.

Previously, similar cases were often handled as “Resisting Persons on Official Duty” (with a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment) or “Intentionally Causing Injury.”

However, recognizing the increasingly serious nature and unpredictable consequences of these acts, the Supreme People’s Court and the Central Judicial Sector have issued guidelines and precedents to standardize sentencing trends towards strict punishment.

Precedents and typical cases: Judicial practice has recorded many sentences where defendants who drove into traffic police or rammed the vehicles of functional forces were convicted of “Murder” (often at the stage of attempted crime if the victim was fortunate to survive), with aggravating circumstances such as: Murder of a person on official duty or because of the victim’s official duties (Point d, Clause 1, Article 123); Having a hooligan nature (Point n, Clause 1, Article 123).

The trial panels in these cases often argue that: The defendant was aware that the vehicle was a source of danger, and driving into a person on official duty is an act capable of taking a life. The victim’s survival was due to luck or timely medical intervention, which was outside the defendant’s subjective intent.

Therefore, for the act of “pushing a