Rus News Journal

Hand arm in hands of citizens: pledge of security or provocation?

what weapon can be used in our country for the self-defence, what “reefs“ meet in practice and as itself competently to conduct to avoid responsibility for excess of limits of self-defence - on these questions experts in the program “I the consumer responded!” With Anna Dobrjuha.

And. D: Today at us on a visit the chairman of Bar “ Pavlovich and partners “ lawyer Oleg Pavlovich and the chief of department on litsenzionno - allowing work of the Department of Internal Affairs on the Western administrative district of Moscow the lieutenant colonel of militia Vasily Kuznetsov.

the program traditionally begins with history from practice. It has occurred couple of years back in Leningrad region. The person has gone on hunting, and in wood it was attacked by group of drunk youth. They have tried to take away a gun. Defending, the hunter has shot and has wounded one of attacking, and another has killed. The court has taken place, and this person have denounced by 2 years of imprisonment. However, conditionally.

and - the second history. About it it has been told in one of diaries on the Internet. “ as - that late at night at a final stop of the bus in one of dormitory areas of Moscow three foreheads have approached to me and have asked to show phone. I have shown them the “ Wasp “. At once have lagged behind. The question has been removed “.

Proceeding from these stories, we will try to understand, the arms how much really can help citizens for self-defence, a leah it is necessary to arm or from it more danger to the citizen which gets the weapon for self-defence.

Vasily Petrovich, what types of weapon are authorised to citizens for using for today for self-defence?

Vasily Kuznetsov: From types of weapon for self-defence it is possible to use (it is registered by the Federal law “ About the weapon “) dlinnostvolnoe smooth-bore fire-arms, besstvolnoe the fire-arms, different kinds and types of the gas weapon, mechanical sprays of a gas mix (as a rule, teargas) and elektroshokery.

And. D: It was necessary to hear that, ostensibly, technical characteristics of the fire-arms resolved for self-defence in Russia, are that that it on a broader scale is inefficient for self-defence. There is even an opinion that the demanded weapon for self-defence is the sawn-off shotgun which is not authorised for using for self-defence under the law. What you on it will tell?

Century K: Now manufacturers of the civil weapon of self-defence leave on every possible kinds, the weapon types, all it depends on demand, probably. Someone likes a pistol besstvolnyj, someone likes be pleasant in the form of a sawn-off shotgun. But the same gas weapon with shooting possibility traumatic cartridges. The weapon which is certificated as traumatic, is besstvolnoe fire-arms.

a call from Alexey: I like idea to use “ the Wasp “ for example. At me is ballonchik just in case. Because I not Jackie Chan, will not beat off from a two. A leah I for self-defence, for example, can use a pneumatic pistol?

Century K: I think that was not present. It is not the self-defence weapon. It is an entertaining subject. You can use it for entertainment where - that on picnic or in a dash. To use it for self-defence categorically it is impossible.

And. D: That is, if in the street someone attacks me, and the only thing what is available, is a pneumatic pistol it is impossible to use it? Oleg, and you as consider?

Oleg Pavlovich: we Will begin that in a decent society it is accepted to enter discussion openly and to define the position. My position is cardinal enough, in my opinion. But I know that it has supporters, as well as opponents. I consider that the legislative normal citizen on a broader scale has the right to have in possession and to use normal fire-arms in the form of a pistol and accompanying accessories.

And. D: a leah Truth that what is authorised for today in Russia, on a broader scale is inefficient from the technical point of view?

Island P: an efficiency Question debatable enough because we speak about the technician. All the matter is that, if the same “ the Wasp “ you will apply against attacking, shooting under the instruction at extremities or in a trunk the effect will depend on clothes, from your readiness, from your accuracy. And will get to a head from distance of 1 metre - will kill the person. Here what to consider as efficiency? If you use the traumatic weapon or similar devices in the forbidden aspect, you can gain the same effect as though you used normal fire-arms. And can be, and is not present.

And. D: Oleg, all - taki explain: if we have only a pneumatic weapon, both someone attacks, and we will apply it to self-defence how much it is lawful?

about; P: I think that it completely corresponds to spirit of article 37 - j the Criminal code about necessary defence which allows to apply all possible means concerning the attacking. If there is a threat of your life or threat of application of violence, life-threatening, you can use everything that at you was near at hand, - a pipe scrap, glass, a knife, a traumatic pistol.

a question in other. When conformity of consequences of a tresspass attacking and degree of threat for you the question on there will be already solved will be found out, a leah it was possible to apply, a leah it was possible to avoid. The law which treats concept of necessary defence, says that in case of a sudden attack, when there is no possibility to estimate threat degree, it is possible to apply everything that at you is near at hand, up to death causing attacking if its actions threaten your life.

Century K: I agree with Oleg, but I want to tell that when aggression … you begins have told that it is necessary to use the weapon not more close 1 metre since Ministry of Health defines this distance which can lead to deadly exod after application of the civil weapon of self-defence. How you consider, what distance can be for you aggression from attacking? It is possible to voice threats in your address on distance of 10 metres, and it is possible to provoke you and on 5 metres...

Island P: Affairs of such category difficult enough, because when we face them there is such strong personification and such careful research of circumstances that in each specific case, proceeding from conditions, the physical data attacking and defending, many any nuances. And one action will be regarded as a lawful use of weapons, and in other case will be recognised that defence limits are exceeded.

I consider that the situation when the person is armed by the present weapon and to it is not present questions from the law and the power this person is in bolshej securities under condition of ability to own this weapon. Because presence of the armed passer-by is an enormous deterrent for any cattle which we name street criminality. I think that when street muggers know that can receive a bullet, they, probably, will think, a leah it is necessary to ask a cellular telephone or to light.

And. D: That is each capable legislative citizen in Russia has the right to possession and weapon carrying? I want to result the inquiry on foreign experience. In the USA the right of citizens to possession of the weapon is fixed in the Constitution, as it is known. There open carrying of the weapon is authorised in 23 states from 50, and the latent carrying of the weapon without restriction is authorised in 38 states. Thus the minimum age of the potential owner dlinnostvolnogo makes armours of 18 years, and for the owner korotkostvolnogo the minimum age makes armours 21 year. Vasily Petrovich how with this business is in Russia?

Century K: Each capable citizen who has reached of age of 18 years, can be converted into law-enforcement bodies and obtain the licence for the right of acquisition of the civil weapon of self-defence.

a call from Oleg: Vasily Petrovich, a leah I can as the ordinary civil person to buy a telescopic bludgeon, to go with it, to apply in case of an attack and t. d.?

Century K: All these cold subjects on sale are excluded. They on sale simply are not present.

and. D: That is the citizen cannot legally get them?

Century K: I telescopic bludgeons on sale did not see.

And. D: And according to the law they basically are resolved for self-defence?

Century K: Kastety also are etc. illegal. Oleg how you consider?

Island P: the Criminal liability for it is not present if simply to go. Because the one who to you has sold such bludgeon, and it is considered a cold steel of shattering shock action, probably, will respond under the Criminal code. For acquisition, carrying the Criminal code threatens you with nothing.

but I want to add that when we discuss a question of restriction of using the weapon normal people, we forget that the criminal does not ask of the permission, and the criminal is always armed. When the gangster wants to be armed, it arms, and the permission does not ask. And from normal people we demand observance of certain norms, the laws, all the rest. Proceeding from the practice, I can tell that it is sometimes better to appear before court, than to lie in a tomb.

Century K: Oleg, I does not agree. We live in a civilised society. And if you carry a bludgeon, means, you worry for yourselves, for the health. Means, to you the law grants the right to get the civil weapon of self-defence on the lawful bases. And by that you will protect yourselves legally, with that weapon which is authorised in Russia.

Island P: the day before yesterday there was a next bad event with which so our everyday life dazzles. On picnic in Marino more than 20 drunk fans of one Moscow sports club simply so beat people with children who have come on shish kebabs. When have called militia, militiamen have beaten too, have thrown stones also sticks. It was necessary to shoot at air. All have run up, have detained pair of instigators semidrunk. And if someone from having a rest had a shot-gun if there remained to lie pair of violent fans … I undertook to protect these people, considering that the drunk crowd in 20 persons is worthy to leave in the field of fight pair of corpses of the active participants.

And. D: I Want to return to the law on the weapon. We have told that as the weapon for self-defence it is authorised to use fire dlinnostvolnoe the weapon. Nevertheless, in the law it is said what to carry it it is forbidden. Vasily Petrovich then how it to use? And the second question. What weapon can be carried at itself constantly for self-defence?

Century K: to Carry fire dlinnostvolnoe the weapon as the weapon for self-defence it is forbidden. It can be used only for protection in a residence.

And. D: And what we can carry with ourselves?

century K: The civil weapon of self-defence: the gas weapon, the traumatic weapon, spark rated sportsmen and mechanical sprays.

Island P: the Optimum variant - on a broader scale to avoid situations where the weapon can be necessary for you. But let`s remember a civilisation. I do not think that the USA are very much netsivilizovannoj. Nevertheless, we have told that there with the weapon is a little bit easier. Let`s remember history when the South Korean student has shot from the weapon of 30 odnogruppnikov at university. And to us speak: here in what results the weapon. If at least one of students too had a pistol with itself, probably, victims could be much less.

And. D: I Can add that after the permission of carrying and storage of the civil cut weapon considerable recession of grave crimes in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Hungary and Bulgaria has been fixed. Legal presence of fire-arms raises public order and security level. Such point of view meets often among experts.

Island P: Yes, it is my point of view.

And. D: And yours, Vasily Petrovich?

Century K: No, I do not agree. Presence fire   korotkostvolnogo armours does not contribute in security increase. Enough civil weapon of self-defence to constrain the aggression factor in a society. At us sort out relations on parkings, using of the civil weapon of self-defence. You represent, if in hands will be fire korotkostvolnoe? Represent, what danger will threaten associates?

And. D: Let`s simulate such situation. The person goes late at night on park or on deserted road. Towards some young men who ask to light or show a cellular telephone. At itself the person has a weapon. From the person something ask, he suspects that it will be fraught with any aggression, a tresspass to health. How competently to operate? It is necessary to warn, show at first a pistol, at once to shoot, if to shoot, where?

Century K: In such situation - looking for what purpose are converted. Perhaps, there is a sense to respond or “ is not present “ or “ yes “. It depends on the person to whom are converted. If he feels aggressive notes or any aggression concerning itself(himself) then yes, the person, having the civil weapon of self-defence, should warn at first a voice that it has a weapon. If people inadequately react to it, will continue the aggression concerning it, the citizen has the right to use the weapon.

And. D: At once we shoot on defeat or at first at air?

Century K: Depending on a current situation. If it is impossible to warn a shot, it is necessary to apply concerning an aggressor without an admonitory shot.

And. D: Oleg, you how the lawyer how you advise yourself to conduct that subsequently the most defending have not made answerable?

Island P: If at you have asked to light in a dark lane, maybe, at you really all - navsego have asked to light. If have asked to look at a cellular telephone I suggest to prick up the ears in this situation. There is such principle. If you are not going to use the weapon on defeat, on a broader scale it do not get. If you have got the weapon, apply it in full. That is, if you were convinced that intentions aggressive that these intentions threaten your life (and it depends on conditions, aggression or behaviour of the people who have surrounded you, from their quantity), I think that in such situation at attempt to avoid the conflict the prevention will be following step - get the weapon and beat the nearest to you or the leader of this grouping. Then can try or escape (though the law from you does not demand it), or to look on conditions. But keep in mind that sometimes weapon demonstration can and to play against you. Especially if you the woman.

And. D: How?

Island P: you will get the traumatic weapon, at you it will select, and to you from it and will get. That is the person should be psychologically ready, if it possesses the weapon, it to use. That is not simply to go with it for self-complacency, and to be able to apply it in extreme situations. Because the weapon - a thing specific enough, it is possible or to wound itself, or for what from you will get to associates.

And. D: History from Marina who has left the message on a site: “ I have arrived recently to Moscow. Work such that I come back home very much late, and apartment I remove in dormitory area. All time I go and I shake with fear. Began to reflect on buying any means for protection. But I am afraid that I can not use it, or I will harm to myself. And still heard that for a use of weapons for self-defence of citizens and judge “. Vasily Petrovich, what you would advise to the person, which reflects for the first time on getting the weapon for self-defence?

Century K: we have a weapon samooborony - gas ballonchiki, spark rated sportsmen, electric shokery. It is possible to manage this kind of the civil weapon. They are the different kind, different action on a current strength. But there are still gas pistols and besstvolnoe fire-arms. To get this weapon, it is necessary to be converted into territorial law-enforcement bodies, having shown the necessary list of documents, having passed tests and having obtained the licence for acquisition, then to get this weapon, to put on the account in law-enforcement bodies.

And. D: And there are cases when women to you are converted behind the licence for fire-arms?

Century K: And as, certainly. But not so it is frequent, men all - taki are more often converted. Recently women are converted behind reception of the licence for acquisition, carrying and storage of the civil weapon of self-defence. In our district lately any application by women of the civil weapon of self-defence it is not fixed. Perhaps, they manage the charm, I do not know.

Island P: Here still hooliganism level should be discussed. All the matter is that if attacks the woman the lonely sexually anxious guest worker, probably, it can be neutralised in any way, beginning from gas ballonchika and finishing a traumatic pistol.

if you will be attacked prepared enough, repeatedly by the offenders, the armed people, I think that the woman will be not not rescued even by presence of a collapsible machine gun. Let`s tell still that the weapon after all is necessary not only at an attack of people. And how to be with aggressive animals? They after all too should be warned a shot in air. It would be desirable to hear, how from the point of view of police officers it is possible to use the weapon concerning a dog, which with the owner, but in infringement of all operating rules, let us assume, without a lead and a muzzle if it attacks you? A leah it is possible to injure in the present state of affairs it on defeat?

Century K: the Law grants such right. It is possible to use the civil weapon of self-defence concerning wild or pets who can do you harm to health.

And. D: I Want to return to history when the person should use to hooligans the weapon, it shoots on defeat. Oleg, is any parts of a body, it is not recommended where to shoot? It as - that is regulated by the legislation?

Island P: It is a question more to Vasily. As far as I understand, from everything that shoots, to shoot at a head it is impossible.

Century K: Yes, I with you agree. The law defines those places where it is necessary to shoot. And not only the law. There is an order of Ministry of Health endurances from which are entered in the instruction on use of the civil weapon of self-defence, it is possible to shoot at what parts of a body.

And. D: In which?

Century K: In an extremity and in a trunk.

Island P: All the matter is that a head, a neck and pahovye areas are areas of potential painful shock. Even if there will be no trauma painful shock can lead to death. If to take history with shot snegouborshchikom shot to it at a foot, but have interrupted an artery, and the person has expired blood. Though shot at extremities. It turns out that the instruction have not broken.

And. D: There are rules how should be conducted after a shot? We will tell, it is necessary to call “ Fast “ where - that to inform?

Island P: it is obligatory. If the attacking had a trauma, it is necessary to inform in “ First aid “ and within days to inform in law-enforcement bodies where this use of weapons has been made. It without fail.

Century K: I would advise to inform in law-enforcement bodies, maybe, even earlier, than in “ Fast “. That is have used the weapon, the person has fallen, call 02, inform that on you there was an attack, there was a use of weapons, and call doctors if in it there is a necessity.

And. D: There is such point of view, in particular, among lawyers. Pretty often the lawful tresspass to health attacking in a status of necessary self-defence is regarded by law enforcement bodies, investigation agencies bodies as the deliberate tresspass to health made at excess of limits of necessary self-defence. And in most cases the citizens, used the weapon, appear are denounced, at least, for conditional terms. For today it is valid so?

Island P: Practically yes. To prove the “ a wooliness “ after a use of weapons and, God forbid, death attacking very difficult. Let`s remember business by Ivannikovoj who asserted that the private taxi driver at 3 o`clock in the morning tried to incline it to oral sex in the car. It has struck its knife, has got to a femoral artery, and the person has expired blood. How much I remember, business lasted 2 or 3 years, and the position of Office of Public Prosecutor and courts was different - that considered that is guilty, is not guilty.

also it is an indicator. That is, even if the person legally applies, depending on weight of consequences it turns out to prove then very difficult its innocence. “ well “ if the attacking has died. And you understand that attacking which has come to the senses at which language is suspended not worse, than at the lawyer, can absolutely draw other picture. And who of whom will talk over, I do not know.

a call from Evgenie: we Will admit, there is I from the underground home, road same. Actually an industrial zone, at the left a fence, on the right a fence. Towards there is an owner with a dog, a dog of the large sizes, without a muzzle. I do not know, a leah will attack me this dog. Naturally, I have a desire to set ready the civil weapon if this dog attacks me. If it will be noticed by the owner of a dog, it can regard it as my preparation for an attack. Also what to me in this case to do?

Island P: If you know this route, very often meet potentially aggressive dog result the civil weapon in battle readiness see you with a dog. Will pass this waste ground, then will return in neutral position. It is not necessary to click a shutter in the presence of the owner.

Century K: Oleg, I agrees, but here still there is one moment. It is possible to ask to call up the owner a dog. If, of course, the owner of a dog the adequate.

a call from Igor: I the owner of a traumatic pistol. How to define a side when it is necessary to use the weapon and when after its application for you there will be complexities? I will explain a situation. Frequently there are conflicts on roads and etc. If the person is aggressively adjusted, goes on you with fists, but is not present either a knife, or baseball bat and etc., a leah it is possible to use in this case the weapon before it will put you any damages? Or then it will be considered as drawing of damages to it? Or to wait, while it will strike blow?

Island P: On your question there is sensible enough answer in 37 - j to Criminal code article. There it is approximately told so that if there is the threat of violence interfaced to threat of your life use the weapon can preventively, on an advancing. All the matter is that in the road conflict if you have not parted with someone, threats of your life from the driver who has left with fists, no.

Therefore there is a second part of this article where it is told that if the violence does not threaten life, apply adequate measures of self-defence. And the question how much they were adequate will be found out further. That is, if on you go with fists, means, you should defend, most likely, fists or any make-shifts. But in this case the weapon will use obvious excess of limits.

And. D: Vasily Petrovich when at you the permission stands out, the licence for acquisition and weapon carrying you spend any educational program, an explanation when it is possible when it is impossible to apply?

Century K: And as. Owners, applicants who are converted, should know rules, they pass tests and only after that obtain the licence for application, safe handling of the weapon. They are obliged to know rules of application. When you, for example, get the car, you at first hand over driving school, and then already get into the car.

And. D: History from Igor who has sent the message on a site: “ I have a fowling piece. The country house costs near to the wood, no protection is present. Tell, if in the house the thief climbs, I will shoot at it from a fowling piece, a leah that something will threaten me in such situation? “.

Century K: Many owners of the civil weapon go out of town, taking out with itself and the weapon, use dlinnostvolnoe and the smooth-bore civil weapon as the self-defence weapon. To carry dlinnostvolnoe and the smooth-bore civil weapon it is forbidden, but to hold in the place of residence it is possible. And to apply it as self-defence it is possible. If have climbed on territory of your site, it is necessary to apply adequate measures. If it has climbed, to ask it to be cleaned from a site. But if it gets into your dwelling, here you have the right to use the weapon.

And. D: Oleg, we can use the weapon, if directly threat to health and life or property?

Island P: At all to health. The tresspass question attacking up to its murder is resolved, when there is a violence, life-threatening. That is, if into your garden house get some persons or one, armed, with a knife, or with the weapon, or the subject as the weapon is used, I think that you can apply on defeat. If the thief on purpose something climbs simply to steal, spend the night, popolzovatsja yours solenjami the use of weapons will be wrongful. Because, in - the first, are not present necessity to kill person - it is possible to wound, immobilise. And, in - the second, you then should prove very long that the fact of occurrence of another`s person in your territory threatened your life. And unlike American, under the Russian laws it not so. If it will appear that to you the unarmed vagabond has climbed, and you have hit it on the fence, I think that to you not to avoid a criminal liability.

And. D: It turns out, not only the weapon for self-defence, but also the hunting, sports weapon can be applied, if it is a question of life threat?

Island P: Yes.

And. D: Vasily Petrovich, I want to hear your point of view as the representative of law enforcement bodies on a popular belief of lawyers that in practice pretty often when citizens try to use for self-defence the weapon, turns around that judge them for excess of limits of self-defence.

Century K: you know, maybe, in practice the such happens to a thicket, than in the opposite direction. But I want to tell that it, probably, from ignorance or forgetfulness of actions of owners of the civil weapon of self-defence after application.

Century K: That is people do not operate how we have told: the message in “ First aid “ and etc.?

Century K: Quite right. Within days (it is the law is defined) he should be converted into militia. The person who has bought the civil weapon of self-defence, has incurred huge responsibility not only before itself, but also before a society. It can harm not only, but also a society. If it has got, should know all laws, all rules by heart. If it correctly applies, adequately to estimate a situation problems will not be. Also there will be no such proceedings against used the self-defence weapon.

And. D: Oleg, you too consider, what the basic reef is that people not up to the end know rules how to conduct subsequently, after a use of weapons?

Island P: it seems To me that the problem is a little in other. It seems to me that a problem for today in an obvious accusatory bias of our law-enforcement system. That is, if there is a fact and a blood pool it is necessary to find the extreme. And who will appear extreme in this situation, it is not known. The matter is that we cannot exclude all and the human factor. Let`s admit, you have attacked, you defended, like all is lawful, but attacking it has appeared the relative of any high-ranking cone or the employee of bodies. And then you will have a big problem.

all the matter is that at us for today, unfortunately, is not present independent court as what I consider a jury. And here the category of affairs on self-defence by a jury is not considered under our laws. Therefore to convince that you have been urged to make it, it is necessary to you to one, struggling with state machinery which, probably, will accuse you that you have exceeded. And practice goes such that search for the compromise more often. That is recognise that like you would be right, therefore to give you conditional term, that you have not got to prison, and like as has very well come to an end. Because it is considered that frequent justificatory sentences concerning defending can generate the big shaft of such actions which call heavy consequences.

And. D: So, Oleg Pavlovich considers that each capable legislative citizen should have the right, proceeding from the law, on carrying and weapon use. At the same time there is such point of view in a society, including among representatives of authorities, what even present rules of carrying and use of the weapon for self-defence too liberal and it would be necessary to toughen them. Vasily Petrovich, you support?

Century K: I Support. But the matter is that at us carrying of the civil weapon of self-defence is defined by acts. At us the civil weapon of self-defence in places of a mass congestion of people is forbidden. You with the weapon will not come into public transport. It is forbidden by the law.

And. D: And how it with itself to carry? We cannot drive in public transport with besstvolnym the weapon?

Century K: In that is continually. Before being converted behind the licence for acquisition of the civil weapon of self-defence it is necessary to study laws well.

And. D: And where further to toughen, if and so for today they actually do not allow to use plainly?

Century K: I would not tell that they liberal, they rigid. But if them to observe, you with the weapon can go out for a walk, but in public transport where a mass congestion of people, you have not the right to bear arms. Neither on concerts, nor on football, anywhere.

island P: In what I see the main problem why the society discusses this question without results. All misfortune in that, in my opinion, that laws on use by citizens of the weapon are accepted by people who are protected which have possibility not to face street criminality.

And the second paradox consists that if people had a cut weapon, the present pistol in a pocket unlike travmatiki it is possible to identify each cut pistol. It is shot, and on it always it is possible to establish, who when it has got and where has applied. On travmatike if the person travmatiku throws out tomorrow this, you never will prove that he had control over it.

And. D: I Will result the point of view of the first vice-president of the Federal union of lawyers of Russia of Igor Trunov: “ In the conditions of the market the state role is shown to a minimum, and actually everyone is responsible for safety of the property and the life “. And law enforcement bodies, according to the lawyer, in the basic functions start to carry out after the committed crime when the victim prepares for funeral or is on duty in resuscitation.

Island P: Completely I support this position.