violence in russia

[ghostrider]

Probably is Russian Law as well

It actually wouldn't surprise me.

[Sclox]

Tell me the flaws.

Tell me the flaws.

First thoughts. Immediate fast track smacks of a shortcut to me with justice dispensed too easily by "Putins boys" - an already oppresive regime. No circumstances considered leaves me uncomfortable. Many examples of fans being deported or arrested with no connection to any violence in the past - they were just there or the "right" nationality.

1) What constitutes minor violence?
2) More than a day in hospital could be precautionary. Hospitals could be busier than others or the specific specialist needed to diagnose an issue may not be available, hospital policy could vary from one to another and be smaller or larger. 10 years for suspected concussion is harsh. Someone could fake injuries to get a hospital stay to get someone arrested or stitched up.*
3)Define handicap. Only physical or mental too? Whose to say for example long term mental trauma PTSD of a minor attack isnt a handicap which could last a lifetime - again 25 years a bit harsh. Every individual has different levels of resilience.*
4)Two equally to blame thugs fight, one wins in a fair fight the other gets hurt? Do both get jail? Or the winner in another fight who didnt start the fight and was defending himself gets a life sentence. What about an accidental death during a fight or a death days or weeks later for reasons undiagnosed at the time? An aggressor is plastered and falls hitting his head after a dig in the chops by someone defending themselves. If police cause a death by excessive force do they get life?

[ashingtoon62]

Tell me the flaws.

First thoughts. Immediate fast track smacks of a shortcut to me with justice dispensed too easily by "Putins boys" - an already oppresive regime. No circumstances considered leaves me uncomfortable. Many examples of fans being deported or arrested with no connection to any violence in the past - they were just there or the "right" nationality.

1) What constitutes minor violence?
2) More than a day in hospital could be precautionary. Hospitals could be busier than others or the specific specialist needed to diagnose an issue may not be available, hospital policy could vary from one to another and be smaller or larger. 10 years for suspected concussion is harsh. Someone could fake injuries to get a hospital stay to get someone arrested or stitched up.*
3)Define handicap. Only physical or mental too? Whose to say for example long term mental trauma PTSD of a minor attack isnt a handicap which could last a lifetime - again 25 years a bit harsh. Every individual has different levels of resilience.*
4)Two equally to blame thugs fight, one wins in a fair fight the other gets hurt? Do both get jail? Or the winner in another fight who didnt start the fight and was defending himself gets a life sentence. What about an accidental death during a fight or a death days or weeks later for reasons undiagnosed at the time? An aggressor is plastered and falls hitting his head after a dig in the chops by someone defending themselves. If police cause a death by excessive force do they get life?

Now that is a well thought out answer,he will come back although it will just be bluster...

[Jammy89]

Tell me the flaws.

First thoughts. Immediate fast track smacks of a shortcut to me with justice dispensed too easily by "Putins boys" - an already oppresive regime. No circumstances considered leaves me uncomfortable. Many examples of fans being deported or arrested with no connection to any violence in the past - they were just there or the "right" nationality.

1) What constitutes minor violence?
2) More than a day in hospital could be precautionary. Hospitals could be busier than others or the specific specialist needed to diagnose an issue may not be available, hospital policy could vary from one to another and be smaller or larger. 10 years for suspected concussion is harsh. Someone could fake injuries to get a hospital stay to get someone arrested or stitched up.*
3)Define handicap. Only physical or mental too? Whose to say for example long term mental trauma PTSD of a minor attack isnt a handicap which could last a lifetime - again 25 years a bit harsh. Every individual has different levels of resilience.*
4)Two equally to blame thugs fight, one wins in a fair fight the other gets hurt? Do both get jail? Or the winner in another fight who didnt start the fight and was defending himself gets a life sentence. What about an accidental death during a fight or a death days or weeks later for reasons undiagnosed at the time? An aggressor is plastered and falls hitting his head after a dig in the chops by someone defending themselves. If police cause a death by excessive force do they get life?

Solid answer, more thought out that what i had

[ghostrider]

Ok, first and foremost you have to take into account the very first words I typed which were these.

"Any physical violence caught on camera and provable will merit immediate fast track prison sentences."

That tells a lot more than just dishing out any sentence willy nilly.
It has to be nailed on provable by camera, not speculated, not word of mouth. Anything other than camera will have to be trialed. But that's a whole new set of rules.

Ok so I'll deal with your queries.

Tell me the flaws.

First thoughts. Immediate fast track smacks of a shortcut to me with justice dispensed too easily by "Putins boys" -

It would be my law, like I said in the post after terrymac posted and it goes back to first point of cameras.

an already oppressive regime. No circumstances considered leaves me uncomfortable.

We can argue about oppressive regimes if you want but we only get told what the media wants us to believe. We don't really know the entirety of it all and.... what is oppressive.... when you consider what we live under?
I think we're all oppressed...but anyway, let's move on.

As for circumstances, the cameras would be the eyes of that.

Many examples of fans being deported or arrested with no connection to any violence in the past - they were just there or the "right" nationality.

If it can't be proved then nobody would be convicted.

1) What constitutes minor violence?

Physical assault with no serious damage. Minor bruising, cuts/scratches or whatever. Basically nothing that constitutes a hospital visit in the eyes of rationality, not the eyes of a person on the end of it.

2) More than a day in hospital could be precautionary. Hospitals could be busier than others or the specific specialist needed to diagnose an issue may not be available, hospital policy could vary from one to another and be smaller or larger.

Then that would be taken into account by time of admittance and the injury, to time of departure.

10 years for suspected concussion is harsh. Someone could fake injuries to get a hospital stay to get someone arrested or stitched up.*

Yes they could and it would be up to the camera evidence to sort out whether that person looked to have sustained those injuries.
No clear camera footage then no fast tracking of anything.
Anybody trying to stitch someone up by witnesses would have to go to court and prove it.

3)Define handicap. Only physical or mental too? Whose to say for example long term mental trauma PTSD of a minor attack isnt a handicap which could last a lifetime - again 25 years a bit harsh. Every individual has different levels of resilience.*

Any handicap that can be attributed directly to the physical harm of that time. Again, camera footage would see the severity of something like that...assuming it was crisp and clear enough.

4)Two equally to blame thugs fight, one wins in a fair fight the other gets hurt? Do both get jail?

Yep, because both were there for that very reason.
However, the severity of the sentence would be down to the severity of the injuries, like I said.
If one thug gets badly hurt and the other thug gets minor scratches, then two separate sentences would be dished out respectively. Major and minor as I said earlier.

Or the winner in another fight who didnt start the fight and was defending himself gets a life sentence.

Nope. If the camera sees one person being attacked who isn't instigating violence, which surveillance would clearly see, then the attacker would get the punishment and the defender would be well within his/her rights to use whatever force is required to stop the attack.

What about an accidental death during a fight or a death days or weeks later for reasons undiagnosed at the time?

It depends on who and what circumstances.
For instance, in the case of two thugs going at it then they would know the consequences of their actions and any death resulting from injuries in that fight would be punishable by life.

However, if a thug was killed by someone defending themselves who was clearly not after trouble and they fell and cracked their head or something or died by a one punch shot....or basically what can be constituted as someone using reasonable force to stop the attacker, then...as long as the camera clearly sees this, then tough luck on the perpetrator and good luck to the defender.

A different story emerges if the defender stops the attack but then goes on to continually reap violence onto the attacker, then...it's jail time.

As far as someone dying of something unrelated to the fight, at a later date...it comes back down to provable or not in court which could be long and drawn out.

An aggressor is plastered and falls hitting his head after a dig in the chops by someone defending themselves.

Tough. The defender walks away.....if....like I said.....the camera proves the case.
Anything other would require witnesses and a court case to determine the truth.

If police cause a death by excessive force do they get life?

Absolutely, without question...but in terms of the police it would come down to how violent the criminal is when being detained as to what constitutes a reasonable force.
A spaced out lunatic on drugs maybe require 3 or 4 officers to detain him/her and it's all about subduing to get cuffs on.
Naturally if an officer is kicking a criminal in order for compliance etc then it's overstepped the mark...and so on.

[Sclox]

It would be my law, like I said in the post after terrymac posted and it goes back to first point of cameras.

We can argue about oppressive regimes if you want but we only get told what the media wants us to believe. We don't really know the entirety of it all and.... what is oppressive.... when you consider what we live under?
I think we're all oppressed...but anyway, let's move on.

As for circumstances, the cameras would be the eyes of that.

If it can't be proved then nobody would be convicted.


Physical assault with no serious damage. Minor bruising, cuts/scratches or whatever. Basically nothing that constitutes a hospital visit in the eyes of rationality, not the eyes of a person on the end of it.

Then that would be taken into account by time of admittance and the injury, to time of departure.

Yes they could and it would be up to the camera evidence to sort out whether that person looked to have sustained those injuries.
No clear camera footage then no fast tracking of anything.
Anybody trying to stitch someone up by witnesses would have to go to court and prove it.

Any handicap that can be attributed directly to the physical harm of that time. Again, camera footage would see the severity of something like that...assuming it was crisp and clear enough.


Yep, because both were there for that very reason.
However, the severity of the sentence would be down to the severity of the injuries, like I said.
If one thug gets badly hurt and the other thug gets minor scratches, then two separate sentences would be dished out respectively. Major and minor as I said earlier.

Nope. If the camera sees one person being attacked who isn't instigating violence, which surveillance would clearly see, then the attacker would get the punishment and the defender would be well within his/her rights to use whatever force is required to stop the attack.

It depends on who and what circumstances.
For instance, in the case of two thugs going at it then they would know the consequences of their actions and any death resulting from injuries in that fight would be punishable by life.

However, if a thug was killed by someone defending themselves who was clearly not after trouble and they fell and cracked their head or something or died by a one punch shot....or basically what can be constituted as someone using reasonable force to stop the attacker, then...as long as the camera clearly sees this, then tough luck on the perpetrator and good luck to the defender.

A different story emerges if the defender stops the attack but then goes on to continually reap violence onto the attacker, then...it's jail time.

As far as someone dying of something unrelated to the fight, at a later date...it comes back down to provable or not in court which could be long and drawn out.

Tough. The defender walks away.....if....like I said.....the camera proves the case.
Anything other would require witnesses and a court case to determine the truth.

Absolutely, without question...but in terms of the police it would come down to how violent the criminal is when being detained as to what constitutes a reasonable force.
A spaced out lunatic on drugs maybe require 3 or 4 officers to detain him/her and it's all about subduing to get cuffs on.
Naturally if an officer is kicking a criminal in order for compliance etc then it's overstepped the mark...and so on.

A lot of your laws rely on the presence of CCTV cameras providing panoramic HD footage on tap with offenders not covering up their faces. Good luck with that one.

Also, in Russia fights happen in forests and waste ground - you know places with no cameras and I am sure these well trained hard nuts know the positioning off all cameras in their "parish". What if an aggressor starts a fight off camera then resume it on camera with an innocent "defender" being jailed?

Do you really think these laws would be administered fairly by a regime which is rife with corruption and regularly murders people?

Sounds to me that there would be a load of red tape, lawyers and subjective opinion involved here with foreign offenders being long gone. Do you think they would return for their court case or would innocent people languish in jail until their hearing?

[Sclox]

...and another thing. Ive seen innocent looking punches knock people out cold. I've seen people getting hit with bottles and being just fine afterward. A camera doesnt tell the full story of physical damage done in an attack.

[ghostrider]

A lot of your laws rely on the presence of CCTV cameras providing panoramic HD footage on tap with offenders not covering up their faces. Good luck with that one.

I could re-write the laws to cater but I'm merely using cameras as a quick identity or violent offenders.
Anyone covered up would be told to uncover and logged and warned that further covering of their faces would lead to prosecution and/or a big fine.
We are talking about football hooligans who would naturally be in police presence as well as cameras.

Also, in Russia fights happen in forests and waste ground - you know places with no cameras and I am sure these well trained hard nuts know the positioning off all cameras in their "parish".

If fights happen in forests or out of camera view then it comes down to witnesses and/or investigation if someone is badly hurt or dies. You know, like DNA or whatever they can legitimately verify....or not.

What if an aggressor starts a fight off camera then resume it on camera with an innocent "defender" being jailed?

Same again, it's up to witnesses and a prosecution etc to get to the bottom of it.
It's generally not hard to see an aggressor against a defender in most cases.

Do you really think these laws would be administered fairly by a regime which is rife with corruption and regularly murders people?

No I don't....but they would be my laws and I would administer them fairly...or as legitimately as humanly possible and punishment fits the crime mentality.

Sounds to me that there would be a load of red tape, lawyers and subjective opinion involved here with foreign offenders being long gone. Do you think they would return for their court case or would innocent people languish in jail until their hearing?

No doubt but if that's the case then passports are taken and only given back when the person is innocent or is released from jail.

To put it simple, I'd let it be known to all hooligans that they run a massive risk of jail time and to not bother going or go back home...............or......stay and watch football and cause no aggro, because the consequences would be severe and spelled out as clear as 1 2 3.

Sometimes examples have to be made to get the message across and there's always a small minority willing to be shown as one, against their will, of course.

[ghostrider]

...and another thing. Ive seen innocent looking punches knock people out cold.

Do you mean like someone going to point something out and accidentally hitting a person who was knocked out or do you mean something else?

I've seen people getting hit with bottles and being just fine afterward.

Accidentally hit or intended?

A camera doesnt tell the full story of physical damage done in an attack.

No it doesn't but it does tell the story of an attack and the aftermath would be fairly clear enough to be beyond reasonable doubt.

[ashingtoon62]

Yee need to get out lad,not more just out!!!!