Military Review

The myth of the legal society


Russia is very often criticized for allegedly low levels of trust, unlike open and benevolent Europe / USA. Here they have, they say, not what is here. People are accustomed to trust each other. Trusting the authorities (which they themselves elect), trusting the police ... This, they say, is the difference, and this is precisely the advantage of a “free society” compared to dictatorial regimes. Something like this.

And besides, in the very "radiant world of freedom" there is a very extensive and developed legal system. And supposedly every citizen these same rights are guaranteed. The system is as follows. Clear, logical, understandable and fair. At the same time, at the beginning of 90, we were penalized that there were more lawyers in New York than in all of Russia. How to build a legal society without lawyers?

As for the level of trust, for some reason, the cardboard doors of Soviet childhood and the key “under the rug” are remembered (option - in the switchboard). That was, that was. And they explained to citizens that they could not do this, but they did it all the same way. It was interesting then that the American "movie" looked like: with fights, chases, burglar alarms in private houses and gangs of motorized criminals. As we then envied the Americans, who have a personal lawyer, a personal car, and a personal weapon...

And the police officer is obliged to warn him when he is arrested that everything he said can be used against him ... Lepot.

Then the iron curtain collapsed, then (not immediately) life in Russia settled down, and we learned a lot of new “about America”. That a weapon is really necessary (but not always save) from armed robbers, that costly security alarms to a house are not a whim, but the reality of “one-story America”. That justice is for someone who can pay for the services of a lawyer, is fundamentally different from the one who is not able to pay for these services. We learned a lot of things.

In fact, the “legal system” that we have been told about for so long really has a place to be. But not for everyone. If a person lives in the "good" quarter (respectively, has a good income), then yes, of course.

Here, you see, what the trick is: we all love to associate ourselves with something good, and it seems to us that we would earn good money in America and would not have problems paying for the services of a “good lawyer”. How else? No, in Russia we are a good lawyer while they did not earn, but in America ... We would all be under two meters tall with a white-toothed Hollywood smile and earn a hundred thousand dollars a year.

Speaking seriously, yes, in the US there is a legal system that is much better than the one that was in the USSR. But this system is not for everyone, but only for those who can pay for the services of a "good lawyer." As one Russian émigré wrote: I earn ten dollars an hour, the services of a lawyer a hundred dollars an hour (if not two hundred), and where is the “rule of law”?

And “at one o'clock” does not mean that you pay specifically for the work of a lawyer in the courtroom. No, you can wait for your turn at the court hour, another, third. And all this time is paid, which is logical. The question is how much money you have. And will they be enough for the whole legal process? Poor Soviet, and then Russian citizens, like a mantra, repeated the phrase: “In a normal country, if hire good lawyer ... "

Great, just great! Key phrase: "Hire". And everyone likes this phrase. And for lawyers who are planning to drastically increase their incomes: an interesting interview met, they say, in England only children of wealthy parents can get a law degree, which, as it were, lays a high cost of legal services, and we, they say, have divorced these lawyers: the price is knocked down, providing non-kosher services. And in London 1500 ceiling euro per hour, and in Moscow only 500 ... It's a shame, you know ...

But also our valiant citizens, who live from paycheck to paycheck and who are ready to take a pitchfork in their hands, in the event of an increase in prices for housing and public utilities, and so they, from some incomprehensible income, are willing to pay for "services good a lawyer ... "No, it all sounds just wonderful, on both sides: both by professional lawyers who are ready to defend the interests of clients in court, and by their potential victims, that is, excuse me, clients ... everything is fine until it reaches to "live money".

Well, here you are a simple Russian, you were “taken to the police” for nothing, with your salary card in your pocket, which you seized along with other personal things. Well, since you no longer go to work, the employer stopped you on that same card (lying in the depths of the police safe) to transfer the salary. Forgive me, of which Shishi pay "services good a lawyer? I just ask, without a trick.

We must proceed not from the cinema-Hollywood reality, but from the harsh reality surrounding us. Right here and now, and not in a hundred years, when you will be all so rich, famous and beautiful (like Nagiyev), are you ready now to pay for the services of a good lawyer? Then why you talk about a kind of "legal society"? There is it, this society, for those who have extra ten thousand greens and above. Only to you from this what use? Do you personally?

In British practice, when they talk about incredible human rights, a randomly selected subject suddenly turns out to be a gentleman and business person from the City. And yes, he turns out to be just a damn lot of rights. Just an incredible amount of them. Like dogs uncut ... most right. In Britain, society was, is and will be class. And in the English Lord already in the 16 century, rights were nemeryannom. But as we understand, this is not an indicator of democracy, since the Irish tenant (who plowed up the seventh sweat on the same lord on the land stolen from him by the lord) had significantly less rights.

And he didn’t need any “jurisprudence”: he decided everything ... landlord! Or a judge ... appointed by a landlord. And yes, the British bobby was very polite and correct. Is always. With gentlemen, of course. British literature and cinema reflect the vision of the world, of course, a gentleman, not a man of the people. Therefore, a kind of sweet illusion.

But life was far from being so beautiful. There was a gigantic gulf between the legal status of the farm laborer / worker and the noble man. Just do not like to talk about it. So the position of 70 percent of British before the First World War was not very different from the position of the “tax-paying population” of the Russian Empire. Even in something Russian, it was easier: for Russia, the most characteristic feature was “pofigism,” but any British landlord squeezed everything from his “free” tenants to the last penny. And just try not to pay ... Such a “legal field” will show where Makar did not drive the calves.

The same (but in a different scenario) applies to the United States, created by immigrants from the very same England. As already mentioned, law and lawyers in the United States are business. The most such "indigenous" and solid business. And the American "loers" can literally allif you can afford it, of course.

It's about like with sweet history about "two cars in every American family": both parents are forced to work, and public transport is not very common. Here are two cars drew ... The problem is that there is no alternative in the form of a "three-tram tram".

So, with the "rule of law", where, on average, every American once a year is suing someone, the same cholera. it not voluntary choice. This is a very special (artificially created) necessity. And it is quite expensive. But without it, nowhere: condemn.

So a very, very significant part of Americans lives out framework of the rule of law. Simply, many of us did not know about it, but if jurisprudence is a business, that is, an activity aimed at making profit, then not everyone can afford its services. Like medicine in the United States. This is where the main dog rummaged: the rule of law is the alpha and omega of Western / American propaganda. And the American state, of course, is positioned as a legal one.

The deception here is this: the Americans themselves understand everything, they quite normally perceive the fact of limited access to legal protection. But most other countries are much more “socialist”. That is, many are missing this interesting moment of exclusive justice (only for the rich). For some reason, everybody automatically begins to associate themselves with the successful character of the Hollywood “movie”, who has a house, a family, two cars and a familiar lawyer.

And for some reason they all think that they live like this all Americans and the police greet them politely. I guess, yes. If you live in a rich suburb, then all this is so (they get paid from your taxes). But not everyone lives there, unfortunately. If you are poor in Russia, then this is bad. But if you are poor in America ... it's a disaster. That is, towards you, not only is the attitude of those around you changing (you sneezed on them twiceа), but the attitude of the police ...

And now you don’t sneeze on the police ... A normal classical scheme of a class society (class, first of all, according to the availability of money), where poor means enemy of society. And the poor are simply pressed for the fact that they are poor ... No, not homeless, not vagrants, not alcoholics ... just poor people from a dysfunctional quarter (work for them Yes , but renting another property is not affordable for them).

That is, on the one hand, they are actively “pressed” by local crime - on bezrybe and cancer fish. On the other hand, the police. How "unreliable" presses.

It remains to understand - where is the "legal society"? For many pro-Western Russians, the events in Ferguson (and not only) came as a surprise. American Paradise crashed. For millions of educated Russians, the United States is a model, a standard. You get used to living with it and suddenly ... Ferguson. And not just Ferguson. As it turned out later, killing blacks by police in America is the prose of life. Many of us in principle cannot understand what is happening there, for one simple reason: there were no slums in the USSR.

In the USSR, there was no social inequality. It is the absence of this “valuable experience” that mixes all the cards with us. In a decent neighborhood / suburb, a citizen pays the police from his own pocket and the police are polite to him. We love to write and talk about it, and this is true. But this is not the whole truth. A lot of honest, but low-income Americans have a completely different kind of relationship with the police. And by no means within the framework of: “To protect and serve”.

If in Britain, in order for Bobby to be ridiculous, you had to be a gentleman, in the US, the “polite cop” service is paid. The very Negro who sold cigarettes by the piece, which the police strangled, apparently did not live in a decent quarter and could not afford a good lawyer. Because he was strangled. And the thing is yes, they brought on his friend, who uploaded this video to the Internet.

That is, all this is, all this is present on a huge scale, we just did not talk about it. For the time being. And then suddenly everyone was amazed. “So how is it, the same legal society! Shame on the jungle! ”And how they liked to tell us that in America even children completely trust the policemen and ask them for a way ... And how they liked to emphasize that the activities of a police officer in the USA are strictly subject to the law ...

Around this: a professional American lawyer, an honest American police officer and an impartial American court - a whole mythology has developed in Russia. And then suddenly everything collapsed. Business, corruption and lawlessness, nothing personal.

The very negros in Ferguson are for the most part “rogue” sitting on a dole. And they have civil rights, but only in theory. Listen, what's the use of numerous and well-developed laws, if a policeman can simply shoot you like a dog on the street? You do not see this bitter irony in this? American law is very, very complicated and confusing to the limit (in order to be understood only “Loyer” and only in its own field). But You can easily be shot on the street without a trial (thereby saving pocket money for a lawsuit).

Those same policemen came to the service in Ferguson from other towns. They are not local, they did not live there. Their children did not go to the same school as the children of those “whose peace they protected”. They never crossed locals at the same bar. They went to different shops. And that powerful legal protection that we love to talk about when talking about America, it certainly existed, but not for those same blacks.

It then fell upon us the shaft of information that blacks (African Americans!) Are regularly killed by the police. And, the funny thing is, the police for it is nothing. Well, why do we need all these “constitutional amendments” of yours and why do we need the term “African American” to make it funnier? After all, you can simply not live to the courtroom. Agree, but in the "totalitarian Russia" the murder of a suspect during the arrest is always a scandal and disassembly of the "third level". For this, no one will stroke the head, and no one will like it.

Moreover, the citizens of the “not free country of Russia” do not see anything wrong in thatиgiven to the police. No one even thinks of a “weapon use case”. Just the head does not fit. Scandals with the police ... fights with the police ... fights with the police ...

That is why I read recommendations in the liberal gazetzion to citizens of “totalitarian Russia” who are leaving for “free America”. So, they start with the fact that the requirements of the police in the United States must be met immediately and without question. Exactly: delay and discussions are categorically unacceptable. Always keep your hands visible and do not make any sudden movements. Do not argue and do not argue. Do not try to get anything out of your pockets.

In case you were stopped on the highway: turn to the side of the road, turn off the engine and put your hands on the steering wheel. Get out of the car without asking the police is not worth it. Do not try nothing get out of nowhere. The author of the article describes how he slowed down near the police car, went out and resolutely moved in the direction of the law enforcement officers. And was immediately taken on the fly. And he just wanted to ask for directions ... And he wasn’t even an “African American.”

He was our man, he did not know then, as communicate with the American cops, and that is why the liberal newspaper makes it clear to its readers that the American policeman is a source of threat and should be treated with the utmost care. And these recommendations are given to the Russian tourist, that is, to a person whom the regime has spread rot all his life. And which should come to a quiet horror from one type of police cap, however ... however, the level of "totalitarian intimidation" of the former Soviet and now Russian citizens is such that they have to be specifically warned about the danger of contact with American by the police.

Dangers any contact. How we liked to talk about the "fascist state" in Russia / USSR. How to set an example of “normal states”, where a policeman is not an enemy, but a friend, not a bribe taker, but a guardian of order. And then suddenly it turns out that all this “virtual happiness” was an artistic whistle. And we thought it was we we hate the police ... Naive. Agree, the love of law enforcement in Russia is not widespread.

It seemed that someone who a citizen this the country has prepared its whole life to be afraid of people in shape ... but come and see you. He is absolutely not ready for American realities. By the way, many of us have seen in the cinema such a version of justice as a deal with the investigation. Caught “on the hot” drug dealer admits his guilt and rents his accomplices, and they guarantee for him (they guarantee it) serious mitigation of punishment (even before the judge got into the judicial chair!). In reality (according to reports of our emigrants) everything is not so great: you are not shown any real evidence of your guilt. Nothing.

You at once offer a "deal" - just like that, without intro. Or you "admit guilt" (and there was no evidence, there wasn’t any, unless it was a denunciation of a paid informant) and you have a full time for what you didn’t commit. Or ... you "refuse to cooperate" and get just a fabulous time. According to the full program. And ... those who "mischievous" and "litigate", as a rule, receive it "in full". The system is one.

And crime must be fought. And the accused are just to hell (America is the first power in the world in terms of the number of convicts), and the investigators and judges have no time to speak with you. No, if you have magic dollars and a good lawyer you can afford ... then in most cases the situation abruptly changing in your favor. And if you can afford to hire some good ablokats, then you just play in god mode.

One famous black athlete (Simpson) in such a situation simply remained at liberty after the murder. He could hire some lawyers. And it's not just their "knowledge of the laws." If you pay good lawyers well, you pay lawyer mafia. And they will otmazyvat you, otherwise who them then will pay? Fine, but what does this have to do with to justice ?

For most Americans, it is absolutely clear that justice for decent people is fundamentally different from justice for rogue women. Nothing to do at all. But we were told in Russia. They told some beautiful fables. They showed some beautiful films ... In fact, it turned out that Hollywood talks about the US legal system as truthfully as the film "Kuban Cossacks" about the fate of the Kuban Cossacks ...

In fact, there is a certain big country with a high level of crime, there is police lawlessness, judicial refusal, numerous overcrowded prisons and an “honest” lawyer business around it all. And, sorry, you are us there Was the name so insistent in the South Bronx?

The myth of the legal society
Photos used:

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech 24 November 2016 05: 40
    Trust the authorities (which they themselves elect), trust the police ...

    What am I doing to check it ...
    After the 90s, from the former trust only dust remained ... enough.

    Recently I quarreled with PPSnikami in the ordinary everyday situation ...
    power in itself ... people also live their own lives.
    The fact that the author has described from his practice, I can say ... most of what is written applies to our reality.
    1. pafegosoff
      pafegosoff 24 November 2016 13: 18
      And who wrote the last constitution to us ?? Who created the new Russia? The State Department and the CIA.
      Now they are creating in Ukraine.
    2. AUL
      AUL 25 November 2016 11: 30
      Many people here cannot fundamentally understand what is happening there, for one simple reason: there were no slums in the USSR.

      There were no slums because we called them "barracks". By the way, there are still some places.
      In the USSR there was no social inequality.

      Of course, of course ... Any hard worker from a machine tool or a milkmaid from a farm were absolutely equal with party or executive committee officials, as well as with salesmen and cops. laughing
      The author drives slogans, it seems, not even hoping that someone will believe him!
  2. aszzz888
    aszzz888 24 November 2016 05: 53
    We have seen enough of this "democracy". And only the deaf-blind-mute, and the paid one can say the opposite.
    As the mericatos were bandits, from the time of the development of the Wild West, they remained so. angry
    1. 210ox
      210ox 24 November 2016 06: 49
      And you noticed who were the founders of this "nation" - outcasts, swindlers, adventurers from all over the world .. Genes, what can you do ... request
      1. aszzz888
        aszzz888 24 November 2016 09: 11
        210quq Today, 06:49

        I agree with you 100% ...
  3. Basil50
    Basil50 24 November 2016 06: 49
    That is OK. Democrats will still work and bring the level of both * law enforcement * and * justice * to high US standards.
    What they wrote in the SOVIET UNION about * Western justice * was an absolute truth and only * pravoz ... and * with foam at the mouth, waving advertising booklets, screamed about * Western culture .... *. Before he was convinced of this, he himself could not believe in any way that one could SO LIE. But the reality was even worse. TAM always lies, even when, involuntarily, you communicate with government officials.
    It’s funny today, but it was then that the first doubts arose about * flying to the moon * and general prosperity.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 24 November 2016 14: 52
      Quote: Vasily50
      and only * pravoz ... and * with foam at the mouth, waving advertising booklets, screamed about * western culture

      So human rights activists just want to earn money in the West.
  4. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 24 November 2016 07: 22
    no money - a free lawyer is given, some of them need to make a career, and in general no one forbids you to defend yourself in court, and before the court you also behave correctly.
    informant slander is cool ... well, tell the judge that this is slander, and you didn’t do it, let the prosecution prove that it’s not
    By the way, they are elected in the United States, from the local ... in the Russian Federation they are appointed by landlords-officials lol
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 24 November 2016 08: 52
      Simpsonian someone again does not fantasize much! belay U.S. federal courts attract significantly more attention than state courts, but in terms of congestion, state courts handle almost 20 times more cases. 867 federal judges in the United States (Article III, with lifetime election), and at the level of courts of appeal and general courts The state employs 10 judges. In different states, a strikingly wide range of methods for choosing judges is used: in 886 states, all judges are appointed, but in most other states, the methods of choice differ for different courts or different jurisdictions: in 11 states, some or all judges are appointed, but then “certification” elections are held, during which the electors decide whether the judge remains in his place or leaves him, in 19 states (some of the states where the "certification" elections are held, and some others) some or all judges pass competitive non-partisan elections and in 19 states (again sometimes coinciding with those already mentioned), judges hold party elections. To participate in elections, especially in competitive, but sometimes also in appraisal, judges collect election funds.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 24 November 2016 18: 24
        Quote: Uncle Murzik
        Federal US courts attract significantly more attention than state courts,

        they attract you
        you won’t always get into federal even if a terrorist or spen
        Have you ever been to an American local or Russian court? or just watch a tv show?
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 24 November 2016 21: 25
      Quote: Simpsonian
      no money - a free lawyer is given

      Which ties, as it were, at times less than that of a reputable company.
      Quote: Simpsonian
      nobody forbids you to defend yourself in court

      To do this, you need to have the appropriate knowledge, to begin with.
      Quote: Simpsonian
      well, tell the judge that this is a slander, and you didn’t do it, let the prosecution prove

      If the judge believes.
      Quote: Simpsonian
      they are by the way elected in the usa, from local

      Power is elected everywhere. Only "local" is a relative concept.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 24 November 2016 21: 50
        and communication is not the main thing, he must know the laws, and he knows them otherwise he is simply not a lawyer
        speak as you are
        judge will check
        the local ones are not federal, the federal is not so good, the local are selected from the local
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 24 November 2016 22: 21
          Quote: Simpsonian
          and communication is not important, he must know the laws

          Yeah. In some ideal society, unconditionally. The problem is where to find this society.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 24 November 2016 22: 50
            Well, the court should not go against the law, unless of course it is a court and not ...?
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 24 November 2016 23: 07
              Quote: Simpsonian
              Well, the court should not go against the law

              In theory. almost always there is a law and there is a court. This is not only in the USA, it was the entire history of the judicial system and I doubt that this will ever change. Another thing is that the United States, with its cult of money, could well take this system to a new level. But they have legalized corruption schemes, the so-called lobby.
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 24 November 2016 23: 40
                practically the court must act according to the law, the lawyer knows the law
                You can explain the essence of the problem yourself, as well as what it was ...
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 25 November 2016 23: 12
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  practically the court must act according to the law, the lawyer knows the law

                  So a judge must know the law without a lawyer. Like a policeman with a prosecutor.
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 26 November 2016 02: 16
                    they have different priorities
                    there were no prosecutors either, there were prosecutors.
    3. gladcu2
      gladcu2 25 November 2016 03: 21

      Answer the question.

      Why so many lawyers if the law is perfect? laughing

      I remember in the USSR, lawyers were poor. wassat
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 25 November 2016 03: 36
        what do you mean why? they want to eat ... they are looking for fools, for that and such legislation to help them, so that they are easier to find ...
        In the USSR there was also a nomenclature ... and more and more prosecutors
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 24 November 2016 07: 25
    The USA and the rule of law are a fairy tale for our "liberals". For the last 50 years, they (the Americans) have only done so to allow blacks to travel on public transport along with whites.
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 25 November 2016 04: 05

      It seems I already wrote to you who such liberals are. I remind you again. And the topic just fits.

      Ehh ... mmmi legalists .... I am laughing at a nimagu laughing Adults ... kindergarten ... fool

      Come on.

      Look here. Traffic Laws. Everyone knows their actions. Riding slowly, keep to the right lane. Do you want to overtake go around on the left. Everyone knows and understands everything. Are there any conflicts? Perfectly? No. Then why lawyers? hi

      Such laws were under the USSR and this state was called TOTAL.

      Take a different situation. There are no traffic rules. Everyone drives as they please. I want food, I want to stand. I want food against the traffic. Conflicts constantly. But then there are individual rights. lol And here the lawyers are fat and confident. They are not measured and they live happily.

      Such a society is called LIBERAL.

      And why is it necessary? stop

      And you need it then .... Remember the popular wisdom. : "Do not fight the strong, do not sue the rich."

      This is the exercise of the rights of a rich minority over a poor majority.

      Capitalism, his mother ...
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 25 November 2016 06: 46
        I remind you again. Ehh ... mmmi legalists .... I am laughing at a nimagu

        Let's start with the fact that you did not write anything to me about this. It was not I who gave the definition of our "liberals" at one time, they themselves appropriated it to themselves.
        And where do the legalists, do I write something about this? You either read carefully or do not write, supposedly the answer to what was not written. Now, with your permission, I will scream.
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 25 November 2016 22: 55

          Why are you getting excited? laughing

          I did not do it before, but now I have given a definition. For that you will remember and tell others. I focus so much. Through the scandals. It is better remembered. yes

          Well, everyone and everyone else with Friday drinks
  6. Nix1986
    Nix1986 24 November 2016 07: 28
    It is time for the author to cleanse himself of naphthalene, the USSR cannot be returned and, unfortunately, you cannot put the key under the rug, and therefore it is necessary to improve what is. As for the price of an adoquat, I want to tell the author who got stuck in the 70s that we also have a free lawyer for him, only here, like with medicine, there is free, but there is convenient, high-quality and you have to pay for it, incl. there must be motivation to become a good specialist and be able to spread something other than butter on bread. At work, I am familiar with the legal system in the United States, incl. and law enforcement. There are excesses with the use of force by the police, this is even the subject of jokes, but in general this refers to the "dysfunctional" contingent from the "Harlem", mainly because they got bored and there is a good chance of getting a bullet. The criminal system is better than ours, comrades with 5 trips behind their shoulders are practically not to be found there, because if you steal a jacket 3 times, then you are considered incorrigible and you are locked for a long time, very much. For 1 murder, you can even go for an injection, depending on the circumstances of the crime. In general, the criminal offense is stricter than ours. But there is also a downside, everything related to self-defense is clearly sorted out. Therefore, the author quickly throw out the newspapers of the 70s and return to the real world.
    1. ghby
      ghby 24 November 2016 09: 02
      Quote: Nix1986
      There are excesses with the use of force by the police, this is even the subject of jokes, but in general this refers to the "dysfunctional" contingent from the "Harlem", mainly because they got bored and there is a good chance of getting a bullet.

      I would say fucking kinks, if compared with ours, they use their ksivas as a shield, one biker for signaling to him - he drove slowly in the tunnel, jammed the car with a chain, and when they wanted to remember his turnips for this business, he took out a New York police detective ksiva and the trunk ... Our police are of course the same good, but they are very far from the Tanovskys.
      By the way, the lawyer price tag in the regions is within the reach of most hard workers, elite lawyers and simple lawyers are comparable in quality of work, but elite ones have access to judges, prosecutors, and so on, and therefore resolve issues. By the way, in Pindastan everything is the same, I'm talking about corruption, there are lawyers with access to judges - prosecutors. And the majority of judges can be forgotten about the election of judges - the dynasty grandfather judge father judge and son judge.
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 24 November 2016 09: 16
        I am impressed by their criminal system, especially about repeat offenders, and how the protection of property and life is regulated. It’s just that this often happens with us - a repeat offender came out with 6 walks, raped a girl, killed a woman and returned home to his zone. But they gave him a 7 chance to improve! Bullshit damn it.
        1. Olezhek
          24 November 2016 11: 35
          I am impressed by their criminal system

          I do not.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 24 November 2016 23: 42
            Is this Russian better?
        2. gladcu2
          gladcu2 25 November 2016 04: 41

          You would think with your own head, and not what you palm off. Write a lot, but to no purpose.
          Where there are many lawyers there are no laws ....
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 26 November 2016 02: 26
            lawyers where there are many laws ...
      2. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 24 November 2016 18: 29
        usually chosen from dynasties, most dynastic professions are not only there ...
  7. klaus16
    klaus16 24 November 2016 07: 36
    I've got an electrician going to America to "megrate". Lest I tell him - he has a very bright idea. As they say: "piss in the eyes - God's dew." And at what, he cannot parry my arguments. It's just that THERE is better than ours, that's all. And there are a lot of them. They only see what they want to see.
  8. Locomotive
    Locomotive 24 November 2016 08: 55
    To begin with, I would like to clarify: was there a respected author in the United States?
    Or: "I have not read the book, but I condemn"? laughing
  9. uskrabut
    uskrabut 24 November 2016 09: 09
    In Russia, almost the same situation has developed. There is money - you are above the law, there is no money - you are under the law. It got to the point that the traffic cops were upfront in order to drive drunk and break the rules, and these tower-goers were not really touched. And if this miracle inadvertently knocks someone to death, then the case is delayed, and then it is completely destroyed, and it does not reach the court. For that, a humble villager traveling by all the rules will be stopped and sanded.
  10. would
    would 24 November 2016 11: 20
    The article consists of "pulling an owl on the globe" almost entirely. No, the United States is not a standard, but rather, in many ways, even an anti-standard, the United States is not like in films, etc. But truth is truth and lies are lies. And if we believe a lie, or even more so generate it, then very soon we will start jumping.

    Firstly, as we have already said, there is a free lawyer in the USA. Secondly, no one forbids defending oneself. Yes, a tough paid lawyer, or better, an army of lawyers dramatically increases the chances of winning a case. And in Russia and in the United States and many other places like that. Because any modern legislation requires careful and professional study, a typical electrician "Vasya" is hardly capable of such a thing. But besides the legislation, there are other parties, such as law enforcement practice, which in Russia unofficially replaces case law and is even worse in some ways.

    But what is the alternative? The author criticizes the modern legal system, which certainly has flaws, but does not offer a way out. It is understandable, sweeping criticism is designed for that.

    Then there is what distinguishes a normal person from a liberalist

    Those same negroes in Ferguson are for the most part “rogue” sitting on benefits. And they have civil rights, but only in theory. Listen, what's the use of numerous and well-designed laws if a policeman can simply shoot you like a dog on the street?

    But you can easily be shot on the street without trial or trial (thereby saving pocket money for a lawsuit).

    Remember one very simple thing: If you read somewhere about the next poor shot by Michael Brown, about how everything is bad, then this is written by a sneaky liberal who hates people!

    To remind you of a story: Two burly black teenagers were stopped by a police officer on suspicion of a robbery in the area a few minutes ago. Search in hot pursuit so to speak. What did poor Michael do? Poor shot, he is a foal who is 18 years old, shot without trial like a dog! *sob sob* . Did you say hello to the policeman? Was nice and friendly and within the law? I'm not talking about hitting or bending over with a forehead, no. I'm talking about being within the law. No, if it were so, then he would not be poor and he would not be defended by the damned liberals. He attacked a policeman (confirmed by testimony), tried to take away his service weapon, then began to run away. And then in spite of the command of the police officer "Freeze!" I ran to him and thus received my dose of lead.

    Two investigations were carried out, not one expert examination, everything was confirmed and, in particular, the version of the point-blank shooting was refuted. No traces of gunpowder were found on the body. The bullet holes confirm that Michael and the cops were facing each other, no shooting in the back of the "poor running foal".

    For liberals like Oleg Egorov, a policeman is rubbish, not a person who can and should be beaten and killed. The police for them is dirt under the nails of another criminal and if another niger killed another honest cop, then the niger did the right thing! And it must be protected. And the policeman is guilty of daring to defend his life, he should not have resisted and died there without any trial, because according to the liberals, the trial and investigation are only for the poor children.

    And that is precisely why in Russia the same policemen are told "you will get a gun, you will sit down" and criminals may not be particularly afraid of anything and only occasionally justice prevails. As it was in Khabarovsk when a crowd of gopots hung the police. But this is Russia! Therefore, the police suffered when they tried to beat off the detainee, when they began to be beaten, they also tolerated. After all, gopniks are the most protected class of society, you dare to fight back and sit down. And only when it became really bad, when after a warning shot they went at him, when they tried to take away the weapon, when he pushed the attackers away from himself without shooting ... only then fire was opened to kill. And surprisingly they were not condemned, but the liberals howled again.

    (carefully, in the video of the gopot and as a result, a constant flow of mat)

    But it was much "better" in Transbaikalia, where the young punks attacked the police station, and all that the police did was barricaded themselves inside. You can't answer, they'll jail.

    where the poor means the enemy of society. And the poor are pressed just because they are poor ...

    By the way, here we have seen many in the cinema such an option of justice as a deal with the investigation. A drug dealer who has been caught "hot" admits his guilt and surrenders his accomplices, and they guarantee him (namely, guarantee) a serious mitigation of punishment (even before the judge sat in the judicial chair!). In reality (according to the reports of our emigrants), everything is a little not so good: they do not show you any real evidence of your guilt. Nothing.
    You are immediately offered a “deal” - like that, without any entry. Or you “plead guilty” (and there was no evidence, there is none, unless the denunciation of a paid informant) and you have a full term for what you did not commit. Or ... you "refuse to cooperate" and get just a fabulous term. According to the full program. And ... those who are "mischievous" and "lousy", as a rule, get it "in full." The system is one.

    I would very much like concrete examples and evidence of what was said. As with much that is indicated in the text, it is indicated without any evidence. And it is applicable to our domestic practice at 100%
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 24 November 2016 18: 30
      I wonder how the partisans appeared in Primorye, who were also acquitted by the jury?
      you can just google "cops killed a man in full view"
      1. would
        would 24 November 2016 19: 39
        Before talking about a certain justification of the coastal partisans, it is worth at least finding out who was acquitted and why, how in general all this influenced.

        Those "partisans" were partly accused on the one hand in many ways, but they were acquitted only of one thing: In the murder of the guards of an illegal hemp field. As a result, two of the alleged "partisans" were released because they were accused only of this, of murder in the framework of the sharing of drugs. And no violence against the police. Three others were acquitted only on this charge and remained in prison for the rest, including those related to violence against the police.

        How did you get it? Good question. Apparently they hanged a hangman on two acquitted people, even their mere participation in a gang has not been proven.

        The rest were broadcasting about some ideological values ​​that were the reason for the attack on police officers, but I have great doubts on this score. For example A. Kovtun converted to Islam ... a coincidence? I don’t think so. The victims were not chosen, to put it mildly, and what is called "smeared with one paint" and on the one hand everyone fell under the distribution, on the other hand, the real corrupt officials not only did not bear responsibility, but openly whitewashed themselves. And so on and so forth. Personally, I see behind this an ordinary extremism with some pseudo-moral ideas that exist only in order to justify it. This is confirmed, for example, by the robbery of ordinary civilians, the theft of two cars with violence against the same civilian drivers, theft from ordinary apartments.

        Well, about Google, you can google yourself. In Russia only the case in Khabarovsk gives out, which is why it is so resonant. This, well, has not happened for a long time.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 24 November 2016 21: 26
          cop excuses, I understand that chocolate teenage crime in Rio de Janeiro got it, but it's not for you ...
          Kovtun rather quivers and maybe a Tatar,
          this case was justified here,
          gives a lot in Russia, about all kinds of champagne bottles, and there was still Evsyukov, maybe he’s even left already, but somehow they forgot about him ...
          1. would
            would 25 November 2016 06: 03
            Champagne bottles, Evsyukov is not a legitimate case of the necessary police defense, but a crime. Not much is not what I'm talking about.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 25 November 2016 06: 08
              Well, maybe they also thought what? bully for example, what the victim wanted or she even liked ...
              1. would
                would 25 November 2016 09: 11
                Direct distortion, as it is typical and uninteresting.
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 25 November 2016 17: 31
                  ... So hasn’t it ever been?

                  it’s clear that you’re not writing about that right away.
  11. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 24 November 2016 12: 37
    So, they begin with the fact that the requirements of the police in the United States must be fulfilled immediately and implicitly. Exactly so: procrastination and discussions are categorically unacceptable. Always keep your hands in sight and do not make sudden movements. Do not argue or argue. In no case do not try to get something out of your pockets.

    Just "+".
    Moreover, the citizens of the “not free country of Russia” do not see anything shameful in “rushing” at the police. Nobody even thinks of the “use of weapons” option. It just doesn't fit in my head. Scandals with the police ... brawls with the police ... fights with the police ...

    More "+"
    Agree, but in "totalitarian Russia" the murder of a suspect during detention is always a scandal and a showdown of the "third level". For this, no one pats the head, and no one likes it.

    And more "+"
    True, I will add that blacks there, not African Americans, but blacks, because they are them, and I don’t put anything negative into it, at least in "Uncle Tom's Cabin", blacks were called that way, and so, blacks and Latin Americans, really are a factor of increased criminal threat. There are many reasons for this, those who are interested will take an interest.
    The topic raised in the article is serious. Someone was passing through the States, someone on a business trip, at work, someone visiting or living there .. Everyone can express their vision. But with the notorious "freedom" there, not everything is as rosy as it might seem from the outside.
  12. 0255
    0255 24 November 2016 13: 46
    Again they tell us about the problems in the USA, keeping silent about the Russians. I do not even want to read the article to the end.
    Author, have you had an internship in our Belarusian media or the Belarusian Republican Youth Union? If not, be sure to go laughing In Belarus, this is a favorite topic - at ideology lessons in technical schools and universities, as well as through Belarus-1 and ONT channels, to tell how bad everything is in other countries and how good everything is in our "astrauke of stability and praise".
    1. Olezhek
      24 November 2016 14: 39
      1 comrad is here a little non-Belarusian media
      2 On the problems of Belarus, the author wrote repeatedly and commented on the written
      Click on the nickname and good luck.
      1. 0255
        0255 24 November 2016 14: 49
        Quote: Olezhek
        1 comrad is here a little non-Belarusian media

        But the article is in the spirit of the Belarusian media - as with others, everything is bad.
        Quote: Olezhek
        2 On the problems of Belarus, the author wrote repeatedly and commented on the written

        I read your articles about Belarus; you describe the state of our economy correctly. But why not write about the problems of Russia?
        1. Olezhek
          24 November 2016 15: 42
          But why not write about the problems of Russia?

          Well, everyone has their own range of interests.
          Plus you write what you can describe better than what was already written before and not by you. laughing
  13. marline
    marline 25 November 2016 11: 24
    Oleg, thanks for the article! It is very necessary, otherwise we sometimes have a wrong idea of ​​"the land of fairy elves". Reading:
    So, with the "rule of law", where, on average, every American sues someone once a year, the same cholera. This is not a voluntary choice. This is a pure (artificially created) need. And it is quite expensive. But without it, nowhere: they will condemn.

    I immediately remembered the episode about the city of lawyers from the movie "Route 60", and it looks like in the movies it was not just banter, the Americans really do not mind blowing up their courts.