Maxim Blinov / RIA Novosti
In the state Duma the bill expanding the right of Russians to self-defence. The author of the initiative, the Federation Council member Anton Belyakov offers to punish the citizens for causing harm to the health of the hackers who illegally broke into their home. The same principle “My house — my fortress” is available in the United States and several other countries, and the Senator is convinced that this practice should be extended in Russia. This will allow law-abiding citizens not to fear of criminal prosecution, even if they have to kill the intruder. “Ribbon.ru” interviewed Belyakov about whether or not to allow the Russians to protect themselves and their property at any price and what will come of this.
“Ribbon.ru”: at what point, according to your suggestions, citizens can what is called “shoot to kill”?
Belyakov: I believe that any such actions will be considered reasonable self-defense, if there is the fact of illegal penetration into the territory of private ownership and at the same time there is reason to believe that the attacker can cause damage to your health. In other words, people have invaded, attacked, and you have a right to protect themselves, their children and their property.
What’s wrong with the current rules on the limits of self-defense?
Now you must act based on the principle of adequacy and proportionality. That is, if a person has a gun, you first have to try to disarm, if he shot you — and then you too can inflict a wound. But if, for example, in addition to the knife, then you too can take a knife but not a gun. I believe that there is no adequacy is not needed: if a person broke into your apartment, you do not need to spend time on finding real if he had a gun or a replica. When you realize that there is a threat to life and health, you have every right to protect themselves and those who are in obviously helpless condition.
Whether there will be a situation when people will be killed simply because of the fact that they were on another site, on private land.
Of course, we are not talking about when the neighbor went to visit. We are talking about the attack, which is characterized by certain characteristics. There is a burglary, a brawl, scuffle, blows. We even in this situation, people are hesitant to stand up for themselves. For example, in Ekaterinburg, where two guys and a girl robbed the veteran of his and hit and pushed and the whole apartment was turned upside down. Agree, this is not something that man is going to ask of salt, and shot him.
On the other hand, the person on the forehead is not written, whether he sells vacuum cleaners or come to kill. Especially if the intruder shot and killed — his real motives no one knows.
No one is saying that the investigation should not work. They just have to figure out what was going on. Question the neighbors if they had heard cries for help, to check the footage. If a man came with a knife — this is one story, and if the certificate of the employee of social security is very different. There are a number of factors. But in case of an attack, the victim must understand that the law is on her side. A person has every right to defend itself. Now it turns out that law enforcement agencies increase the performance of detection at the expense of people who, from the point of view of common sense, did not exceed any limits. It turns out the man needs to think in advance in what part of the body it will hit the criminal who was going to kill him.
You propose to allow people to shoot and cut without warning at the slightest threat?
When a person has reason to believe that there is a real threat to his life, Yes. It is now proposed to the victim to sit and think: “But he had already decided to kill me, I can react or I have to wait?” Who knows, this criminal? Maybe he choked in order to scare and at the last moment to release, so it was impossible to shoot him in the head. It was necessary to wait, while it will choke you, so what? I believe that it is completely unreasonable. Law enforcement practice has already accumulated sufficient in order to get rid of these rules.
“My house — my fortress” is not the only principle of the protection in the world. There is also a “give up while you can”, which allows you to use any means of protection, but only when all possibilities to avoid a collision. This concept is not suitable for Russia?
We’re talking about objective facts that can determine man, and which subsequently may be established by the investigation. If a neighbor came in, started swearing and he was shot, then the shooter will have no evidence that it was a burglar who broke into his home. it should be understood. We have now other extreme. Currently, disputes, the law takes the side of the attacker, who was wounded, and in prison is a victim. Every time the same thing happens: the public outcry, the involvement of human rights defenders, petitions, letters to the President etc. Is that the way the law should work?
For Russia, a fairly typical domestic conflicts on foreign territory that ends in a brawl “because of suddenly arisen aversions”. If desired, they can try to imagine how self-defence.
In such cases there is a consequence that will establish that people are familiar with each other, one another, say, in the messenger invited guests, they were drinking alcohol, something fell out. It wasn’t a robbery and not an assault on the house, namely, a fight, a totally different story. In pure form it has nothing to do with my law: it’s about the illegal invasion of the territory of the property of others. Private or rented, as long as the man lived there legally.
The law refers to the protection of people who are in obviously helpless condition. The attack on this category will be an aggravating circumstance?
No, it is written in order to protect from prosecution the person who protects themselves and others. For example, a person sleeping in the next room, and the robber attacked his kid or elderly parents. In this case, the person may not be any signs of beatings, but we give him the right to protect not only themselves but also their loved ones who, for objective reasons, are unable to do so.
To protect by any means, without thinking about the consequences?
We humans tend to think about the consequences. Few people want to consciously take a sin. If you can hit on the head, to relate, to call the police and put in 15 years, it is the choice of any person. No one among ordinary citizens don’t need twenty years later dreamed of the eye of the murdered man. This is not a story where the victim wants to kill someone. But the man should understand that he could be killed if he got in a strange house. After in mass-media write that somewhere a break and retired, defended themselves, they will think ten times before to climb. Now the robber all the cards in hand: the worst that can threaten, call the police. And the likelihood is that you will not catch, even higher. I think that after the adoption of the law crime will decrease. In other countries this statistic is.
The initiative of expanding self-defense were repeatedly brought to the state Duma but were refused each time. Why not support in the lower house, despite the fact that in society this idea rather approve?
Must form public opinion. It was so many times, I remember, what was the reaction when I first uttered the phrase “chemical castration of pedophiles”. Laughed the entire country. What an extravagant the Deputy from Vladimir region! Not only that, no one about pedophiles then wrote. Many even refused to believe that we have people who rape children. Years later, however, there was the opposite phenomenon, began to write about every occasion, and began pedastery. In the case of self-defense must meet many factors. Water wears away stone not by mass, but by number of strokes.
I understand that sometimes it is not given immediately and you have to re-introduce the initiative. I understand perfectly well that the law should protect the victim from the attacker, not Vice versa. Obviously. Every time you boil the minds, when the 72-year-old pensioner beaten, robbed, he manages to fight back and in the end it turns out to 4.5 years in prison. This is the case when the mind can not understand Russia.