Home / Business / Problems with the law: where does self-defence

Problems with the law: where does self-defence

Проблемы с законом: где кончается самооборона

I have to say: legalize “Korotkova” impossible. Not in the sense that I personally think so, but in the sense – impossible. Legally in our society and in our time is impossible. Let me explain why.

Short arms is legally no different from any other weapon: starting with a hunting shotgun and finishing with your own fists.

I immediately objected: “As it is “will not”? Fight with your arms, hunting weapons by law to possess, and short-barreled a gun battle ordinary citizen – not”.

But we don’t care about “Korotkova spherical in vacuum”, but a very specific and simple thing:the ability to use handguns for self-defense. Isn’t it? So, from this point of view, they are no will be different from any other weapon. Open your eyes, read the news and you will find confirmation of this.

There was a fight in the garage, and someone slapped a monkey wrench, crowbar, tire iron or rebar – what is the result? There was a fight in the forest or the village, and someone slapped a stick on the backbone, and then by the axe – what is the result? Was a drunken domestic squabbles, was a fight of young people, were “conversations on ideas”, and someone stabbed a knife – what’s the outcome? Always the same: the courts stamp, like a conveyor belt: “excess”, “excess”, “excess”… Legalized Korotkova just added to this list.

It’s not that our country cannot defend short-barreled rifles. The fact is that our country has practically never under any circumstances to defend. Nothing.

Guns – this is just a special case of a more General pattern, and its legalization will give no more than the legalization of crowbar, pry bars and axes – they’re not banned, right? And that, much legal pry bar helped to avoid the term “excess” to those who successfully otmahnulsya it was from the attackers – especially if otmahnulsya too well?

I propose a name for the program of legalization of short-barreled rifle in Russia. Let’s call it: “Buy yourself time”.

In a fit of fury, of course, possible to yank the gate on the shirt with the cry: “Let the judge better three than four bear,” but… this will be confirmation of the idea of “buy yourself a life for them”. Or the other extreme: buy and never use, not to sit down. “It’s better to be robbed than going to jail.” Too logical.

What a difference, will shoot you forward of the shoulder or break his already allowed a baseball bat, if and in that and in other case you will land at the same time?

What’s the point to achieve the legalization of handguns, if they similarly cannot be used as any other? Or do you naively think that firearms for the investigation and prosecution will be other articles to use and certificates for bravery from the police Department to prescribe?

The grim humor of the situation is that we cannot so defend themselves, even police officers – widely known fact – more likely to get punched in the face, or a knife or a bullet, than to resort to his sidearm. I can understand them: they are so many people fused “in places of confinement” under article for “abuse” that I know perfectly well that even the police, though quite different articles, the minimum threatening trouble is reprimands, demotion, dismissal, and in the limit – all the same criminal terms. Therefore, experienced police officers we prefer not to shoot than to prove that you had the right to apply a service weapon.

What can you do?

Of course, it’s not in the legalization of firearms. And not even in the adoption of laws, oddly enough. No, here all is much worse.

This situation is an abnormal situation in our country, it is not legal, and law enforcement.

It’s not that laws are bad. It would be with the current laws do not put 80 percent of those condemned for “abuse”. But the fact is that the investigation and the courts we have in the case of selecting between “necessary self-defense, justified use of force” and “exceeding the limits of self-defense” are always inclined to choose the latter. They could be justified – there are laws (there are already some laws, they don’t need to take) that allow people to justify. But they prefer to condemn.

Here’s how to deal with law enforcement and such bias in the investigation authorities and courts, is not clear. It is clear that simply enacting laws will not be enough – you need some strong political will, which commanded the security forces citizens not to punish them for what they are protected.

In principle, investigators are easy to understand: here’s a corpse, it’s a criminal case. That there was in fact God knows, witnesses do not usually happen (by the way, the few instances, when did people justify and accept the necessary self-defense is, as a rule, or the testimony of witnesses, or the recording camera). But usually nobody knows what it was. If in the end the corpse, he will not say anything. If grievous just something you Wake up and start blaming the person who caused. With a knife, bat, tire iron, long-awaited if a pillow is not important. What is important is that the result always prefers to stand on the side of the one who “suffered more”. And straying from the robber or bully will not defend ourselves from the Prosecutor’s office and court.

That’s why I said at the beginning that it is impossible now to legalize Korotkova. That is, in theory – but only in theory. But in fact all over the plant. Not because he Korotkova, but because we have all put.

Any suggestions

Here Barshchevsky offers – for a very long time and very persistently, may God give him health for the efforts – the introduction of the concept “my home is my castle”. At least on the territory of the home owner was always and a priori rights over the attackers, regardless of the circumstances. Even if the whole clip dropped in an unarmed thief would still be right. I totally agree with this. In terms of total and dreadful ban on self-defense, even that would be a huge breakthrough. A small island of security – their own homes. Where you can protect yourself, your family, your property. The sanctity of private homes of citizens in action – it would be perfect.

But then you still need to do something with the common prosecutorial bias law forbidding citizens to defend themselves. Probably, it is necessary to adopt new laws and who would be best for the prosecution narrowed the range of circumstances that allows you to condemn a citizen.

But such legislative initiatives as the most appropriate, as the air necessary – for some reason no one heard. And I understand why. Because SCU-u-u-u-scientifically. Because the citizens of dull to understand that. They’re not bored to sit in prison for these items, but boring to understand that it is the very possibility of legitimate self-defence, and not what weapons will fight back defending.

No, definitely: to bawl about “let us finally firearms” is fundamentally easier. And most importantly – in the brains of people it fits easier. People head do not include further one step ahead don’t think. They believe that if they plant today for legitimate self-defence a legal knife, then tomorrow will not go to jail for legitimate self-defence legal “pillow”.

Populism is still our all. And the best part: so in this particular case, the truth generally lies on the surface. It is simple and easy to understand. She even sort of well-known, although for some reason no one in the right moment, not think about it.

Sect of Witnesses of the Holy Pillow vociferous, aggressive, and not only don’t want to think, but jumped on anyone who tries to do it. However, it also works in reverse: they are able to think and believe that this is a good political slogan. What they, ahead, thing is that a lot of people then with that notorious pillow will imprison, if a loud mouth is a Deputy chair?

So do not think that in Russia there is a problem with the legalization of short-barreled rifle. There is no problem, but there is a problem with the fact that prohibited almost any self-defence: though a flame thrower, even bare hands. That this is indeed a problem and it is horrible.

And the solutions to these problems are obvious: first, the normal legal self-defense, and then – after – talking about short-barreled weapons. Because short arms will become just another one of the guns allowed to own, but you cannot protect yourself without having to not to sit next to prison with the formulation “for excess of limits of necessary self-defense.”

Check Also

UK house prices fall by 1.8% during year amid higher mortgage costs

Property market weak, says Nationwide, which expects prices to remain flat or drop slightly in …