How to make porridge from an ax

The nationalists knew very well: the domestic conflict of Alexandra Lotkova could become interethnic only after the verdict

A few touches on the note by Murtazin's colleague about the "Lotkova case", in which he deliberately did not mention the nationalist flavor of this story - so as not to be led by the Network. However, there was no less far-right rhetoric in connection with the sad story of a Moscow student, her comrades and victims of the shooting in the metro.

Recall: May 26, 2012 a group of young people whom a student of the Russian University of Economics. Plekhanov Alexandra Lotkova was waiting in the subway, quarreled on the escalator with other guys. Among them was the only "non-Russian" participant in the fight - Ibragim Kurbanov. Seeing a “tourist hatchet” in the hands of one of the rivals, Kurbanov asked: why? He was answered unkindly, and he took away the hatchet. Lotkova resolved the fight in self-defense and protection of acquaintances with several shots. One offender, Ivan Belousov, was shot in the lung. Then Lotkova and her comrades came to the hospital to the victim and reconciled, but his relatives were already in the mood to sue. On March 20, the Tverskoy Court sentenced Lotkova to three years in prison (a year under house arrest counted) for daring and anti-social shooting.

And suddenly a young party, the Union of the Peoples of Russia, appears on the virtual arena, organizing pickets in support of Lotkova. Party chairman Timofey Pershin starts a group dedicated to the “Lotkova case” on the VKontakte social network and writes about a Russian girl who defended herself “from a drunken animal” Kurbanov. And the owners of non-Russian surnames - “the investigator Gainullina, the lawyer of the“ victims ”Ravil Vafin and the prosecutor Radzhabova - put her in jail for three years.” The pickets, of course, were not so emotional, but out of habit, many got smeared in the sticky Internet propaganda.

The World Russian People's Council, one of the oldest Russian social and religious organizations, which is formally headed by Patriarch Kirill himself, has swung in the same direction. The “Sobor” demanded an impartial examination, but clearly stated its position: “A significant number of compatriots see an interethnic conflict in the incident, and a manifestation of ethnic discrimination in the verdict.”

Lotkova's harsh sentence - especially against the background of the recent release in the courtroom of Rasul Mirzaev, whose careless blow led to the death of 19-year-old Ivan Agafonov - is undoubtedly discouraging. However, the ultra-right's "qualification" of a domestic fight as an inter-ethnic one looks ridiculous. Moreover, both sides of the conflict, firstly, according to Gazeta.Ru, found common friends; and secondly, they say that both of them share the values of the anti-fascist movement.

The way to gain political points on the punctures of competitors is as old as the world. But the fact that recently it was the ultra-right who have succeeded more than others in this was said a few years ago by the untimely departed Galina Kozhevnikova, deputy director of the SOVA center.

The Union of the Peoples of Russia and the World Russian People's Council can hardly be called ultra-right organizations. It is obvious that the young party is simply looking for an electorate: it criticizes Putin and plays the national card. The “Sobor”, apparently, also needs to make some statements in order to contribute to the “revival of Russia”. If so, then it would be useful to remind Pershin's party that it is unlikely to chop off xenophobic voters from the Liberal Democratic Party, and wish the Sobor to abandon the idea of saving Russia. Usually this, as Boris Grebenshchikov wisely put it in a recent interview with Colt, leads to civil war.

Nikita GIRIN

Under the text

No. 1: Now there is no such thing as a “traumatic weapon”, officially it is called a firearm of limited destruction, although the concept of “injury” has been entrenched among the people. But the rule remains the same: after using a weapon, a person must wait for the police. Moreover, you need to call it yourself. You can’t take the weapon from the place of use, because by law it is necessary to check the cartridges - for injury, the energy must be limited to 91 J. And to show that the cartridges are certified, you provide the weapon.

- How can you classify the actions of a police representative who was at the scene? There is information that it was a trainee.

No. 1: Intern or not, he is a representative of the law. When he saw the mess, he simply had no right to leave the crime scene. The man committed a misdemeanor, he should be tried.

No. 2: Lotkova asked the police officer to separate the fighters, but he just stood there and watched. He clearly committed criminal negligence and had to go under the article. But they just fired him.

“But he was there. Was Lotkova obliged to call more policemen?

No. 1: The fact that he was there does not help the girl. After using the weapon, she was obliged to dial the police number.

No. 2: She really should have called the police. She would have been detained and taken to the police station. And there it was necessary to write a statement against the people who allegedly threatened her, which would explain the use of weapons. Plus - a statement on the inaction of a police officer.

“Is it really possible to pierce a lung with such a weapon?”

No. 1: You can kill a person with an air rifle with an energy of 3 J. By the way, now everyone writes that Lotkova did not have the right to shoot in the chest, only in the limbs. It's a bullshit. By law, you can't shoot only in the head.

No. 2: At the same time, you must remember that you have the right to use weapons only at the time of the commission of the crime, while you are in real danger. If a person runs away (and even more so if he is lying on the ground and does not pose a danger), you do not have the right to shoot even in the legs.

- Can Lotkova's actions be called self-defense?

No. 2: What happened is not self-defense under any circumstances, so the verdict is quite natural. What happened is the forced use of weapons to prevent a crime, and then with a stretch.

No. 1: Self-defense happens in two cases. The first is when a person approaches you and says: “Now I will kill you.” Then you take out your gun and fire a warning shot so that the attacker can change his mind. And if you are attacked and strangled or beaten, then you can shoot. There is another option: if a person comes at you with a bat or a knife. You can shoot right away, because his intentions are obvious. But after the use of weapons, you must at least sit on this knife or bat with your fifth point, in order to prove later that they were.

Lotkova's defense was initially built incorrectly. They claimed that the girl was saving her life. But in fact, she tried to prevent a crime against her acquaintances. This whole story without positive characters - they all broke the law.

Recorded by Olga PROSVIROVA