Every year in Russia, hundreds of citizens are sentenced for exceeding the limits of self-defense. In 2018, their number was 750, in 2017 - 854. Most likely, the increase in the number of such resonant cases has led to the fact that this issue is now being raised at the highest level.
We are talking about an amendment to the 37th article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is proposed to be supplemented with another clause - that the actions of a person aimed at protecting himself and his family from violence or the threat of violence or to protect his property do not exceed the limits of the necessary self-defense.
Yes, for example in the USA there is such a principle that protecting yourself and your family at home you can defend yourself as you want and you will not be found guilty. Is it worth doing the same with us?
Today, the entire judicial machine will defend the victim if he suddenly breaks into your house and wants to kill you. All these norms about the need to apply self-defense "adequately to the threat" are just bullshit. When you are attacked, they can kill immediately and there is nothing to wait and there is no time. A person cannot wait until he is shot or stabbed with a knife in order to use weapons or improvised means.
Now some kind of norm is being discussed, such as if someone enters your house at night, then you can use anything and everything for self-defense. And in the afternoon? And in the afternoon what to do? Die or go to jail? However, the discussion has begun and, moreover, many are inclined to remove many restrictions on self-defense, and even more so in your home.
However, as always, there are all sorts of "but!"
Here's an example. Someone wanted to bang their neighbor. I asked my wife to call him to my site with an ax to help cut down a tree. Slap and corpse. And who will then prove that he did not run after you with an ax in your area. Although I myself will clarify here: the right to defense does not mean that a case will not be opened against you, and that there will be no investigation. This means that if the facts say that your life was even the slightest threat, the aggressor will be to blame. And such a right is the only true law that can be.
Promotional video:
And if the guys climbed to the uncle to scribble apples? And the guy is with a gun and he is aware of the newly adopted law. Helmet and shot the boys. He will say that he thought the gang was trying to kill him. But here, too, everything is relative, today they climbed for apples, and tomorrow they kicked someone with a crowd to death.
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but they mention that in the USA people very rarely go to visit each other because, among other things, they are afraid to be on foreign territory at all. Dangerous. Suddenly they will shoot them and they will get nothing for it. Prove later that you did not rush at the owner of the house.
So, should we cancel all defense limits within the framework of your home and plot, or do you still need to be more careful about these changes?
The question of the limits of necessary defense is much broader and concerns not only actions in one's home and not only the use of weapons. But I consider it possible to discuss this topic only with lawyers who have sufficient experience in law enforcement and judicial bodies in various positions.