Supreme Court clarifies important rules of self-defense – Rossiyskaya Gazeta

by time news

The Russian Supreme Court has banned shooting at fleeing people. But when a person’s life is under threat, he has the right to defend himself in all ways. When blood was shed, the courts are obliged to thoroughly delve into the situation every time: how great was the danger, whether the defender crossed the line, did he really defend himself.

Lower instances should be guided by the legal positions of the Supreme Court of Russia, which recently clarified important nuances of self-defense when considering specific cases. For example, a woman can stab her to protect herself from her husband’s fists. But a man with a gun should not shoot after the uninvited and evil guests began to scatter in fear.

A selection of fresh decisions on the issue of concern to everyone was made by the Pravo.Ru portal. In one of the cases, a resident of Yakutia shot several people who had clearly arrived with bad intentions to his house. Two of them were killed, two more were seriously wounded.

The hot company did not come for tea. They had some complaints about the owner’s son-in-law. After the man stood up for a relative, claims arose against him. Excited, unkind fellows came to the man’s house to deal with him and his family.

There is no need to explain what it means to “understand” in this case. We already have too many lovers to gather in a crowd and pounce on a person today. An excuse will appear on the street – a sidelong glance or a polite request not to swear – they will throw themselves on the street. If a quarrel arises over the phone or for some reason fails to arrange an “educational session” on the street, they will come home and start a pogrom.

Such cultural traditions, which have suddenly burst into our lives, must be suppressed. Not surprisingly, the host greeted the guests on the doorstep with a gun. Moreover, in the house behind him were frightened grandchildren.

You cannot shoot in the back of a fleeing person. But if the danger is real, a person has the right to protect life in all ways.

Further events developed as follows. Seeing that the enemies had arrived, the owner approached the gate and, at a distance of 5-6 meters from them, fired one shot into the air. Three guests continued to walk forward, the fourth wavered and ran back. The man pointed his weapon in the direction of the visitors, who were still walking towards him, and fired at them through the closed gate from a profiled sheet. The bullet hit one of the guests. He fell. The owner of the house came out of the gate and shot at the feet of another guest. Then he hit the stomach of the third visitor, who was standing nearby. With the fourth shot, the man seriously wounded the last guest, the one who was running away. The outcome of the meeting: two in the morgue, two in the hospital, one on trial.

The lower courts recognized this as self-defense, but found that the man exceeded its permissible limits. As a result, the person was sentenced to 3 years 7 months of restriction of freedom. That is, he was not even sent to jail. This can be considered a humane sentence. Although, of course, disputes can flare up here too. Some believe that in such cases, a person should not be punished at all. Others are sure that the punishment should be stricter, because the guests have not yet entered the house, and they did not have weapons with them.

In turn, the Supreme Court of Russia decided that the courts did not take into account all the circumstances. Namely: an aimed shot at a fleeing person, as well as the fact that the victims did not have weapons with them, and when they got out of the car, they did not express any threats. In dry juridical language, it sounds like this: on their part, there were no statements “about the intention to immediately cause a citizen or other persons death or harm to health, dangerous to life.” Therefore, the decisions of the lower courts were canceled and sent for a new consideration. And not at all to mitigate the sentence.

But the Supreme Court of Russia fully acquitted the woman who was beaten by her husband. During the quarrel, she stabbed her husband in the chest with a knife. Not killed, but seriously wounded. Prior to that, three instances had found her guilty.

According to the defense, R.’s husband, “being intoxicated, in front of her young daughter, using a far-fetched pretext, attacked her, used physical force, began to strangle her, and at that moment she accidentally stabbed R.”.

Lawyers especially note that at the time of the attack, the woman was already holding a knife with which she was cutting bread. “At the moment when Tatyana V. was cutting bread on the table with a knife, R. turned her to face him, pressed her neck with the wrist of his left hand, and with his right hand struck two blows to the shoulder area, causing physical pain,” the Supreme Court recounts the circumstances of the case.

In response, the woman stabbed her husband in the chest with a knife. He survived. All these are facts confirmed by the court, which are not disputed by the injured party. That is, the defendant did not grab a weapon and certainly did not attack her husband with a knife.

But when your hands are clenched on your neck, you do not always find the strength to put aside dangerous objects and try to somehow solve the matter peacefully. Should I be judged for failing to save myself without shedding the attacker’s blood?

“V. stabbed R. at the time of the victim’s attack on her, trying to protect herself from his illegal actions, including pressure on the throat. realized that she could not escape, and therefore she stabbed the victim with a knife when she tried to push her away, “the country’s Supreme Court drew attention.” V. stabbed R. with a single knife just at the moment of real danger to her life in order to save herself. “

The Supreme Court requires a careful study of the identity of the defender and the balance of power

A few years ago, the plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia adopted a special resolution clarifying the rules of self-defense. The main rule: your life can be protected by all means. The right to defense is given not only by attack, but even by the threat of life-threatening violence.

Let’s say an attacker brandishes a pistol and shouts that he is about to shoot. If the situation is serious, the court will support the one who dared to defend himself. Sometimes a threat arises so unexpectedly that a person does not have time to assess the danger. In this case, even tough self-defense will be justified.

As the plenum explained, courts should take into account the time, place, setting and method of the attack. The state of fear, fright, confusion at the moment of the attack can also become an excuse for the one who defended himself. In fact, the document gave citizens carte blanche to protect their lives. Now, considering specific cases, the Supreme Court confirms just such legal positions. In this case, the accused was fully acquitted. She is recognized as having the right to rehabilitation.

The experts of the Pravo.ru portal have identified several key points in the legal approaches of the Supreme Court of Russia. First, the initiation of violent action is much more significant than the threat of violence. That is, sometimes threats alone are not enough to use force in response. Second: the court pays close attention to the personality of the defender, the balance of forces and weapons of each side.

.

You may also like

Leave a Comment