When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

New Russian Regulations: No Right To Self-Defense If Police Are Beating You

Moscow riot police in action
Moscow riot police in action
Grigorii Tumanov

MOSCOW - The question of whether or not citizens in Russia have the right to defend themselves if they are being beaten by police was taken up by the Supreme Court in June.

The case came just after a large protest on May 6 that was marred by several police beatings. In regulations released soon after, the Court clarified that Russian citizens have the right to defend themselves if the police are using “indisputably illegal force.”

However, even that caveat seems to have disappeared from the final regulations that were released late last month. Indeed a closer look at those regulations make clear that Russian citizens do not have the right to react or defend themselves from police officers who are attacking them, including during street protests, even if they are in danger of bodily injury.

According to Pavel Chikov, head of the human rights organization Agora, the court’s regulations are an invitation for the police to be violent. “I personally only know of one case in modern history when police actions during a protest event were declared illegal," he said. "I think that after these new regulations the police will never be charged with doing something illegal.” The one instance Chikov said he knew of when a police officer’s conduct was judged illegal happened in 2010 in St. Petersburg, when a police officer hit a protester with a club, and was sentenced to three years in prison as a result.

Dimitri Denze, a lawyer for one of the protesters arrested during the protests last May, clarified that these Supreme Court regulations are non-binding, but that in all likelihood lower courts would follow the recommendations of the higher court.

He also said that the new regulations are almost certainly related to the cases that stemmed from the May protests. All of the accused are being tried under laws prohibiting attacks against a police officer. But the accused all maintain that the police were the first to use physical force against them, and the protesters had to defend themselves.

According to Mikhail Pashkin, head of the main police union in Moscow, the lack of clear criteria for what constitutes legal force by police officers creates a serious potential for abuse. “At what point can one defend oneself? The law already establishes that the police cannot beat someone on the head with a club, that is illegal, but there are already a slew of cases where Special Police Forces have broken that law,” he told Kommersant.

For example, on September 15, a Special Forces policeman hit a protester named Yekaterina Zaitseva on the head with a club. She suffered brain damage as a result. In the aftermath, top police officials announced that there would be no consequences for the policeman, since he was defending himself from a group of opposition protesters who had torn off his helmet, and Zaitseva was among the protesters.

Chikov said that it seems like the only time a person can defend themselves from the police is if they have Denis Evsukov in front of them, in the act of shooting people. Evsukov was a Moscow police officer who killed two people in a drunken shooting in a Moscow supermarket in 2009.

The official representatives of the Moscow police department were not available to comment.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


Is Disney's "Wish" Spreading A Subtle Anti-Christian Message To Kids?

Disney's new movie "Wish" is being touted as a new children's blockbuster to celebrate the company's 100th anniversary. But some Christians may see the portrayal of the villain as God-like and turning wishes into prayers as the ultimate denial of the true message of Christmas.

photo of a kid running out of a church

For the Christmas holiday season?

Joseph Holmes

Christians have always had a love-hate relationship with Disney since I can remember. Growing up in the Christian culture of the 1990s and early 2000s, all the Christian parents I knew loved watching Disney movies with their kids – but have always had an uncomfortable relationship with some of its messages. It was due to the constant Disney tropes of “follow your heart philosophy” and “junior knows best” disdain for authority figures like parents that angered so many. Even so, most Christians felt the benefits had outweighed the costs.

That all seems to have changed as of late, with Disney being hit more and more by claims from conservatives (including Christian conservatives) that Disney is pushing more and more radical progressive social agendas, This has coincided with a steep drop at the box office for Disney.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest