2025年8月10日，江西南昌八大山人梅湖景區發生一起駭人聽聞的兇案，震驚大陸社會。19歲的外交學院女大學生劉某某，當天與好友施某相約穿著漢服到景區遊玩，本是一次充滿悠閒與文化氛圍的出行，卻在毫無徵兆之下陷入致命危機。

當日下午13時40分左右，一名年約二十多歲的男子席某某，騎著電動車靠近兩人，主動與劉某某搭訕。對方的言行令劉某某感到不適，她當場拒絕對方的示好。然而，這個看似普通的拒絕，卻瞬間引爆男子的暴力行為——他神色突變，手持一把剪刀瘋狂捅向劉某某及其朋友。劉某某的頸部大動脈與腹部連中十多刀，傷勢極其嚴重，幾乎沒有搶救的時間便當場身亡；同行的施某也被刺傷，但在送醫後脫離了生命危險。

案發過程中，兩名見義勇為的路人試圖制止兇手，也在過程中不同程度受傷。行兇後，席某某駕車離開，隨後選擇向警方自首。警方在偵辦中確認，他曾有精神疾病診療史。這一信息的披露，引發了輿論的高度關注與爭議。

8月12日，南昌市公安局青雲譜分局正式發布警情通報，證實嫌疑人席某某有精神疾病診療史，案件已進入深入偵查階段。外交學院方面則在校內發布暑期安全提示，提醒學生注意人身安全。同時，死者的家屬透過同學群和社交平台求助，希望案件能獲得公平審理，並嚴懲兇手。然而，他們部分的發聲內容在網路上遭到限流，進一步引發公眾不滿。

8月13日，事件的輿論熱度持續升溫。許多人對景區的安保措施提出質疑——為何在如此開放的公共景點內，會發生如此惡性事件，且無法及時制止？另一方面，關於嫌疑人精神疾病診療史是否會影響刑事責任的認定，也引起社會熱議。部分律師援引《中華人民共和國刑法》相關條款，對精神病人在刑事案件中的責任能力進行解讀，並分析其在司法實務中可能導致的量刑差異。

這起案件不僅奪走一位年輕生命，也再次敲響公共安全的警鐘。人們在痛心與憤怒之餘，呼籲對惡性暴力犯罪保持零容忍態度，同時要求完善公共場所的安保防範措施，防止類似悲劇重演。無論兇手的精神狀況如何，無辜生命的逝去已無法挽回，而如何在保障社會安全與依法審判之間取得平衡，成為此次事件中社會輿論關注的核心焦點。

On August 10, 2025, a horrifying murder took place at the Ba Da Shan Ren Meihu Scenic Area in Nanchang, Jiangxi, shocking the nation. Nineteen-year-old Liu, a student at the China Foreign Affairs University, had gone to the scenic area with her friend Shi, both dressed in traditional Hanfu, for what was supposed to be a relaxing cultural outing. However, without any warning, the day turned into a deadly tragedy.

At around 1:40 p.m., a man in his twenties, later identified as Xi, rode up to the two on an electric scooter and attempted to strike up a conversation with Liu. Feeling uncomfortable, Liu rejected his advances on the spot. What should have been a simple refusal instantly triggered the man’s violent outburst—his expression changed suddenly, and he pulled out a pair of scissors, stabbing Liu and her friend frantically. Liu suffered more than ten stab wounds to her neck, severing her carotid artery, as well as to her abdomen. Her injuries were so severe that she died on the spot before any rescue could be attempted. Shi was also injured but was later stabilized after being rushed to the hospital.

During the attack, two bystanders who tried to intervene were also injured to varying degrees. After the assault, Xi drove away but later turned himself in to the police. Investigations confirmed that he had a documented history of psychiatric treatment, a detail that quickly fueled heated public debate.

On August 12, the Qingyunpu Branch of the Nanchang Public Security Bureau released an official statement confirming Xi’s history of mental illness and stating that the case had entered an in-depth investigation stage. The China Foreign Affairs University issued a summer safety reminder to its students, urging them to be vigilant about personal safety. Meanwhile, the victim’s family appealed for justice through classmates and social media, calling for the perpetrator to be severely punished. However, some of their online posts were reportedly subject to limited visibility, sparking further public outrage.

By August 13, the incident continued to dominate public discourse. Many questioned the adequacy of security measures at the scenic site—how could such a vicious attack occur in an open public venue without timely intervention? At the same time, heated discussions arose over whether the suspect’s psychiatric history should influence his criminal liability. Some legal experts cited relevant articles of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China to explain how mental illness is assessed in determining legal responsibility and how it could affect sentencing in judicial practice.

This tragedy not only claimed the life of a young student but also sounded a fresh alarm for public safety. Amid grief and anger, citizens called for a zero-tolerance stance toward violent crimes and urged the strengthening of security measures in public spaces to prevent similar incidents. Regardless of the suspect’s mental condition, the loss of an innocent life is irreversible, and balancing public safety with fair judicial procedures has now become the central focus of societal concern in this case.