Case Budantseva. Silence of the newspapers

Readers will surely remember how they discussed my publication. "Citizens to the rescue"which called for attention and, if you will, to help publicly express your attitude towards the case of a lawyer, FSB reserve officer and veteran of hot spots Eduard Budantsev, who resisted armed criminals by shooting two of them with a premium pistol.

For two years, this man was under investigation and arrest; he could easily get a sentence either for premeditated murder, or for exceeding self-defense, this would be how our judicial curve would have taken. A lot of people in Russia and for less sitting in similar situations ... But in this case, the stars came together correctly, and the case on Budantsev was closed, without finding a crime in it. Along the way, corruption links were uncovered by representatives of the investigation who tried to prevent Budantsev from an organized criminal group, whose militants were killed by Budantsev in a shootout.

There were a lot of publications about this event in different media, most of them were negative in relation to Budantsev. He was even called a member of his criminal group, not sharing something with other criminals. Moreover, these publications directly or indirectly spoke in favor of the opponents of Budantsev. Only very few media outlets have decided to publish materials in its support, including the Military Review website.

But the effect of such publications was remarkable: a lot of reposts and comments in support of the officer! And this, for the umpteenth time, worked!

But all those media outlets (among them are full of very powerful and well-known) who tried, as they say, to roll a barrel on Budantsev, not trying to figure it out objectively, are now showing complete, just deaf silence on this matter. And it is extremely interesting for me to know what the readers might say about this great silence?

PS The announcement of the termination of the investigation into Budantsev was made only by the Regnum agency.

Comments

[Same lech]

To put aside emotions ... the story is simple ...
the local gang came to squeeze the restaurant from the owner ... the local policeman arrived pretended not to be me and not my horse (I believe it was bought by bandits).
To the trouble of the bandits, the lawyer turned out to be a tough nut and did not break under the pressure of the bandits ... well done.
I believe that in this whole story the local police behaved ugly ... we should shake it for corruption and links with local crime.
And Budantsev should be grateful for the courage and protection of his ward ... such men are always worthy of respect and honor.
The fact that the media poured mud on him is silent due to their cowardice ... Budantsev is still a lawyer and can correctly make them pay for the lies that they pour on him.
Thanks to the author for the article.

[Uncle lee]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

The media pouring mud on him are silent, explainable by their cowardice

and stupidity! They would apologize and repent. You look, and Budantsev will forgive them.

[Tatyana]

The truth has triumphed - and this is the most important thing!
It is a pity that Budantsev lost two years of his life under investigation and arrest. For something too suspiciously for too long, his work was investigated by investigators.

[KAV]

Quote: Tatiana

For something too suspiciously for too long, his work was investigated by investigators.

Probably, a wide network of contacts opposed him.

[Spartanez300]

Because they are silent that in defense of their writings there is nothing to say. As usual, without having understood the media (or got it on their paw) they begin to accuse a person of all mortal sins, they would now apologize to the officer for their actions.

[jjj]

Still, the Chekists, purely from the technical side of things, use weapons more professionally

[dSK]

Quote: jjj

security officers

A new body - an analogue of the American FBI - will be created on the basis of the Investigative Committee of Russia (TFR) by combining the investigative units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB. Interviewed by Tsargrad experts explain the planned changes in law enforcement agencies with the need to increase the fight against crime and create a more independent and professional agency. The plans for the reform of law enforcement agencies were unveiled by the head of the Moscow headquarters of the TFR, Alexander Drymanov, explaining them by the need to consolidate the investigating authorities. Work on the relevant bill is already underway. It is logical that there is no situation, as in the fable "Swan, Cancer and Pike", when everyone pulls in different directions. There will be one-man management. We are the only investigative body that reports directly to the president of Russia. "
As part of the innovation, the role of the Prosecutor General’s Office will also change. According to the bill, the state prosecutor is introduced into the case not upon approval of the conviction, as it is now, but already from the moment of arrest. The changes will affect the alignment of forces in the block of law enforcement agencies and will require increased control by the Prosecutor General. The latter has already opposed the formation of a consolidated investigative body based on TFR. Office of Yuri Chaika intends to regain the investigation, as it was before 2011.

[dSK]

Retired General of the SVR, Executive Director of the Two-Headed Eagle Society Leonid Reshetnikov believes that now there is an “urgent need” to strengthen the fight against crime in a number of law enforcement agencies. And this can be done by creating a more independent and professional investigative department. The merger (units of the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs) will strengthen the investigation simply on particularly important cases, on corruption and other crimes, within our law enforcement agencies, law enforcement agencies. This, of course, must be done, given the numerous manifestations of violations and crimes. And, of course, such an association is aimed primarily at strengthening the fight against corruption and other crimes in law enforcement agencies, in law enforcement agencies, "Reshetnikov noted. (Article on the TV "Tsargrad". 15:08., 20.03.18) "Why is the Russian FBI being created."

[Cxnumx]

For two years this man was under investigation and arrest, he could have gotten a sentence either for intentional murder, or for exceeding self-defense, this is how our court curve would have endured.

here! that’s what our lobbyists and home firearms fans need to fight first of all - with the moronic decisions of our law enforcement and judicial systems on self-defense, and not for the distribution of firearms in the country.

[Per se.]

The author Mikhail Goldreer, who would doubt who about what, and "lousy about the bath," how such an event from the "Rights to Arms" gentlemen will be missed ... As Alexei wrote above (the same LEHA), if we put aside the emotions ", need to say. First, the law should really be clear, understandable, and, most importantly, fair. Second, no one has prohibited and cannot prohibit self-defense. Third, the weapon is sold, it is available, shops are bursting with it now, as they say, but possession of a weapon should not give an automatic right to legalized murder. He killed a man, only the court can qualify the adequacy of such defense, make its verdict according to a law that is fair and understandable to everyone, where they should not punish an innocent or justify those who think they are new noblemen, decided to assert themselves with a “gun” from personal complexes or drunk bykovka ". Without this, there can be no rule of law. Gentlemen from their “Rights to Weapon”, it is high time it was renamed “The Right to Self-Judgment”, and not to fool people who love weapons, their heads with their sly care.

[Same lech]

Second, no one has forbidden and cannot ban self-defense.

Unfortunately, not everything is so simple in our law enforcement practice.
It’s very easy to go to jail defending yourself ... well, for example, if you were fighting off a bully’s attack, you broke your jaw, and his neck is even worse ... just pushed him away, he slipped and broke his neck or pierced his skull ... instant death ... more follows initiation of a criminal case not on the fact of an attack on a respectable citizen, but on the fact of the attacker's death ... in the end, they put the one who defended himself ...

where is justice ... I categorically believe that this is wrong ...
in Western jurisprudence it is customary to first attack and be guilty of the consequences of the attack ... this should form the basis of the law on self-defense and reasoning of lynching ... self-assertion ... bulling does not cost much when you start to be scumbag and at the same time say that it was you who attacked them.

[Per se.]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

and the reasoning is moot judgment ... self-affirmation ... bykovania cost a little when you start beating

Alexey, I'll tell you a joke here. Shot down a deputy of two men with his car at a decent speed. He hired a sharp lawyer, asking him what he would be for it. The lawyer wiped his glasses, put aside the papers, and said. The one who flew through the windshield to you will go under the article for penetrating private property, and the one that flew into the ditch on the road will be responsible for hiding from the scene ... What is moral is not always possible to prove who started first, especially when the "first" is already a corpse. In addition, a weapon in the hands of a powerful person, a person with connections that he finds (or buys hundreds of witnesses and lawyers) is unlikely to contribute to justice in this situation. If you legitimize military weapons, which, in fact, gentlemen from the “Right to Arms” seek, it will be a legalized right to shoot to kill, under the cover of the law. Let you not be deceived by this, the weapon here will be not only among honest and decent people, but also those who are worse than gangsters in their rotten and selfish morality, and you will shoot not only, but also at you, anyone who sees danger or brakes will refuse, sniffing coke or after pollitrovki on the chest. There are many options, from disputes in an accident, to a conflict at the entrance or in a restaurant. I agree only with the fact that you need to clearly and unambiguously interpret the SELF-DEFENSE than I will kill the gangster here, if that’s the case, it doesn’t matter if it’s a hammer, a fist, a knife, or a hunting rifle. In general, if social injustice, impoverishment, the decline of education, culture and morality increase in society, no weapon will make this society safe. This is also one of the reasons why I am for socialist development.

[Same lech]

Your joke I heard unfortunately there were such anecdotal cases.
Of course, a weapon in itself is a source of danger, and I understand that it is impossible to give it out to anyone and it is also necessary to use it within the framework of the law.
But I want to separate the law on weapons and the law on self-defense between these two concepts ... in practice, these are two different things.
The police have weapons by law and sometimes even in this environment there are abnormal policemen who kill citizens with these weapons in the mood ... is it really necessary to forbid having the police weapons after that ... why transfer the blame of individual violators of the law to all respectable citizens.
Further, I agree with you that social injustice worsens the criminal situation ... what to do then? ... wait until it improves or what? ... after two hundred years.
And we need to live now in the conditions that we are now ... all the same, we need to write down every case of the use of self-defense with grave consequences in the law on self-defense so that there are no discrepancies and objections ... that’s what the deputies should do ...
I am very disappointed with the poor work of the State Duma deputies in this regard ... therefore, in the next elections to this body I will categorically not vote for parties that oppose updating the law on self-defense.

[a housewife]

Happening. In the village, my grandmother stayed home for several days alone. Local drunks at night began to burst at the door. "Grandma, give me the money!" My grandmother had an ax at hand. She answered - to the first who breaks in - with an ax in the forehead, let them judge me later. To another - if it succeeds. "Gone. And, I assure you, the grandmother who survived the war would have slammed the occupation in the forehead! And you say - weapons!

[Per se.]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

The police, according to the law, have weapons, and sometimes even in this environment there are abnormal policemen who kill people with these weapons in the mood ... does it really have to forbid the police to have weapons ...

The army and police are delegated such powers by the constitution, protection from external and internal threats. Moreover, if in the case of external aggression against Russia, evidence of the guilt of an enemy soldier is not required, but for the police, nevertheless, even the recidivist is a citizen of Russia, and in order to shoot him on the spot, we need weighty reasons already specified by the law. Even for hunting the beast requires a license for shooting, the presence of a hunting ticket, the beginning of the hunting season. Yes, the law on weapons covers various weapons, hunting, sporting, traumatic, but in our topic the emphasis is precisely on combat, the status of which is not hunting and not shooting sports, but the destruction of the enemy. An ax, a kitchen knife, even a hunting rifle, do not imply the killing of a person by their status, their purpose, respectively, their use, - use as an improvised means. The legalization of military weapons, primarily short-barreled ones, automatically legalizes their use for their intended purpose, that is, firing to kill anyone who acquires such weapons. You say, "I agree with you, social injustice worsens the criminogenic situation ... what to do then? ... wait until it improves or what? ... after two hundred years," and nothing will be better, only the level of opposition will increase, where it used to be a banal scuffle, it will immediately be wet. And, not only those who receive the barrel will be killed, but also those who will not have it, not only for fear of this trunk during an attack, but also for the purpose of taking possession of the already “lighted” weapon when carried. As the rich get richer, and the poor are impoverished, will also be with weapons, one short-barrels will increase permissiveness and impunity in society, already under cover of the law, others, even having obtained their “budget” PM, will still be guilty, robbed, humiliated or killed. You have the right to have your own opinion, but think once again to whom it is necessary, such “care” about our people, represented by the same gentlemen from Right to Arms, with their foreign headquarters and overseas owners.

[free]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[free]

Quote: Per se.

Quote: The same LYOKHA

and the reasoning is moot judgment ... self-affirmation ... bykovania cost a little when you start beating

Alexey, I'll tell you a joke here. Shot down a deputy of two men with his car at a decent speed. He hired a sharp lawyer, asking him what he would be for it. The lawyer wiped his glasses, put aside the papers, and said. The one who flew through the windshield to you will go under the article for penetrating private property, and the one that flew into the ditch on the road will be responsible for hiding from the scene ... What is moral is not always possible to prove who started first, especially when the "first" is already a corpse. In addition, a weapon in the hands of a powerful person, a person with connections that he finds (or buys hundreds of witnesses and lawyers) is unlikely to contribute to justice in this situation. If you legitimize military weapons, which, in fact, gentlemen from the “Right to Arms” seek, it will be a legalized right to shoot to kill, under the cover of the law. Let you not be deceived by this, the weapon here will be not only among honest and decent people, but also those who are worse than gangsters in their rotten and selfish morality, and you will shoot not only, but also at you, anyone who sees danger or brakes will refuse, sniffing coke or after pollitrovki on the chest. There are many options, from disputes in an accident, to a conflict at the entrance or in a restaurant. I agree only with the fact that you need to clearly and unambiguously interpret the SELF-DEFENSE than I will kill the gangster here, if that’s the case, it doesn’t matter if it’s a hammer, a fist, a knife, or a hunting rifle. In general, if social injustice, impoverishment, the decline of education, culture and morality increase in society, no weapon will make this society safe. This is also one of the reasons why I am for socialist development.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Simargl]

Quote: Per se.

not only you will shoot, but also at you

Just need to remember that to whom badly needed - they already got their trunks!
And shoot "us" on its discretion!

[Per se.]

Quote: Simargl

Just need to remember that someone strongly need - they have already acquired trunks!

There is a significant but, after the legalization of the shortbridge, the law will officially be on their side. They recalled a grandmother with an ax, and so, if the emphasis is not on a fair understanding of self-defense by any means, but on the access of civilians to military weapons with their status, defense with an ax will be a crime, and shooting from a legalized pistol is legitimate. Moreover, it is unlikely that a babyshka or the same mother of many children can afford to buy a gun, collect all the papers, and some blue "something" from show business will boast not only the latest iPhone, but also a cool gun. The fact that “weapons discipline” is a myth, like the fact that all drivers are directly disciplined. Bastards remain bastards, and neither the presence of a car, nor a gun do not do them better. The fact that the criminals are already armed, so they are the criminals that they put on the law and morality of society. Bandits will answer your pistol with an automatic weapon, and even without a barrel, due to meanness and unexpectedness of an attack, they will always have a head start, from sharpening in the back, the pistol will not help. I am fascinated with weapons since childhood, but we need to understand what kind of gin some want to let out in Russia from a bottle, and we must distinguish between personal desires and outright whims from the good of Russia and its people. I repeat, without solving problems with social justice, confidence in the future, without education, culture and morality, one increase in weapons among the population will not solve the problem of criminalization, it will only get worse. And, now it is necessary first of all to improve the professionalism of the judges, the police, to finalize the law in self-defense, and not to be provoked by provocation from the same Goldreer, with his custom articles.

[Simargl]

Quote: Per se.

defense with an ax will be a crime, and shooting from a legalized military pistol is legitimate.

This is how you need to pervert the logic to think so (although I agree: money can solve this incident too )! Those. Can a legal trunk (a specialized defense and attack device) against a legal ax / armature / knife (improvised means) be clearly interpreted against the latter? I think here you also need to consider who attacked: the villain with a toothpick or grandmother with a gun.

Quote: Per se.

The fact that “weapons discipline” is a myth, as well as the fact that a driver’s license directly disciplines everyone.

I don’t know where it came from ... this is not disciplined. If you got right - you are burdened responsibilities! So there you go! Discipline not right, and inevitability penalties for violation responsibilities! Is it clear now?

Quote: Per se.

The fact that criminals are already armed, so they are criminals that they put on the law and morality of society.

And why should a law-abiding citizen be limited more than a criminal? Do you know how a criminal differs from a law-abiding citizen? First of all, he did not care about the limitations (duties) of society (laws). What is the problem?
There is such an option of punishment for non-fulfillment of duties (violation of the law) as a reduction in the Rights: violated, and you have not only been deprived of the license for the weapon, but also your driver’s license, for example (because you ignore the rules for owning a dangerous mechanism / item) ... or caught in a blue / drug drive - passed the trunks.
If you manage this correctly, everything will be decent!

Quote: Per se.

The bandits will answer your gun automatically, and even without a barrel, due to the meanness and surprise of the attack, they will always have a handicap, from sharpening in the back, the gun will not help.

If you are "ordered" or "chosen" - nothing will help you! And from gopnik and dogs - quite. Our peasant’s dogs were bitten (drunk, true, but he wouldn’t be sober either).

Quote: Per se.

you need to understand what kind of gin some want to let out of the bottle in Russia

And what? At the moment, the energy of the “trauma” shot is limited to 91 J, this corresponds to the energy of the “fire” 0.22 LR shot from a short pistol barrel (original Margolin with a barrel of 130 mm - about 90 J, MTsM-K "Margot" with a barrel of 98 mm - about 65 J). Attention - the question: why is the “trauma” of 90 joules allowed, and the MCM-K “Margot” with 70 joules - no ?! Do not you think that logic is not okay ?!

Quote: Per se.

And, now it is necessary first of all to increase the professionalism of judges, the police, to finalize the law on self-defense, and not to be provoked by the same Goldreer, with his registered articles.

Not only the professionalism of judges, but also of lawmakers! Without normal, logical laws, we and the judges will interpret the Law as they want! And Goldreer has nothing to do with it!

[Per se.]

"Legal ax", if you want, then yes, if you need self-defense. But it cannot be a legal right to impose the death penalty at its own discretion, which is what the legalization of the shortbag gives. You don’t need a gun by yourself, you need the right to kill, personally deciding who is worthy of life and who isn’t, so that you don’t have anything for it, so the law itself allows anyone who gets this most legal to shoot to kill trunk. And, self-defense, by the side, the main thing is, I have a gun, and if I can justify self-defense, I can use it, I can shoot. Want to kill, immediately a bullet in the forehead, kill, but answer for this before the court. About this speech, and here it does not matter what you killed, not culturally dirty ax, or "cultural" of a beautiful gun. We need a law on self-defense, where self-defense is clearly stipulated, its legitimacy when used, if necessary, as a weapon of any object, from bricks to firearms. Do you not understand this, or do you want to immediately feel like a samurai, to be closer to the "chosen one", having received magical rights and powers along with a gun? And Goldreer is very much with it, this is one of his many articles where, by hook or by crook, they try to push the ideas of the weapon "good". I think it makes no sense to further discuss, to each his own.

[Simargl]

Quote: Per se.

But the right to personal death sentence, which gives the legalization of the short barrel.

You are sick? With what fright can this conclusion be drawn ?!

Quote: Per se.

And, self-defense, I’m already sideways, most importantly, I have a gun, and if I can justify self-defense, I can apply it, I can shoot.

I have knives that I carry around all the time. They can be killed. By your logic, if I can justify self-defense, can I cut people right and left? I won’t even try. And take advantage in the most extreme case!

Quote: Per se.

We need a law on self-defense, where self-defense would clearly be stipulated, its legitimacy when used, if necessary, as a weapon of any object, from brick to firearms.

No one argues that we need a normal law and its adequate application, however, how does this relate to the short barrel ?!

Quote: Per se.

trying to push the idea of ​​weapons "good"

How it hooked you ... You know that it is not necessary to use the right to consider yourself more free. The main thing is to have it.
I gave you a lot of information to think about, but you did not use it. Regrettably.
I repeat:
1 - Rights
2 - Responsibilities
3 - Punishment for non-compliance with the Obligations when using the Right.
Regarding weapons - crooked laws written by ignorant people.
Example? In addition to the aforementioned distortions - the permitted "traumatic" up to 91 J and the prohibited "firearm" up to 90 J, although the damage is comparable.
Next: .366TKM and Lancaster - what is this? Ballistics and energy are almost the same as that of a rifled one, the bullet rotates like a rifled one, but shooting is fired through a thinner barrel. This cartridge and weapon under it is a mockery of stupid laws!
The same with the short barrel!

[Per se.]

Quote: Simargl

I gave you a lot of information to think about, but you did not use it. Regrettable

Maybe we, as if in different languages ​​speak, and, however, I am up to such speed “Are you sick?”, I do not stoop. You about self-defense and the status of military weapons, you're talking about ballistics ... The meaning here is joules, if we are talking about the right to shoot to lose. Trauma does not give the right to kill, military weapons, this implies its status. You are not for hunting or sport shooting, not as a pugach, you will acquire a short-barreled, if it is legalized. I’ve shot in my life, and I don’t want to build a cowboy in a peaceful life. You have little shooting range, well, I have already said, to each his own. One, you need the right to your life, others the right to someone else's death. You seem to be behind the technical side, you don’t see the essence of the problem, or you don’t want to see it.

[Simargl]

Quote: Per se.

I am up to such revolutions "Are you sick?", I do not go down.

Well, what should I think if you have phobias and fever?

Quote: Per se.

The point here is to consider joules when it comes to Right shooting to kill.

Law or opportunity? If you are talking about Right shooting to kill without conditions, i.e. responsibilities observe some regulationsthen you are talking about anarchy.

Quote: Per se.

Injury does not give the right to kill, military weapons, this implies their status

Stop! Stop! What a fright increase opportunities automatically leads to right?! Those. a hunter who has a small thing can kill one person a year, and who has an "elephant" - two a day? This is your logic!
And what about the housewife, who has a gorgeous set of kitchen knives, some of which, if poked "in the place", the probability of death will be higher than from firing from the PM there?
You confuse right и opportunity!

Quote: Per se.

You are not for hunting or sporting shooting, not as a scarecrow, you will acquire a short barrel if it is legalized.

You will not believe! First of all, I’ll buy a short barrel for entertaining (maybe sports) shooting!
If the state gives me the right to own and, possibly, wear a short barrel, it will burden me with the obligation to comply with certain rules, namely:
- shoot in designated areas,
- prohibition of hunting (insufficient power and accuracy),
- a ban on wearing in certain places with a large crowd of people, etc.
And, if there is a situation in which it is useful, first of all I use it as a scarecrow, if possible, and in the last - as a means to cause damage!
And the state will by no means consider the presence of my short-barrel as a mitigating circumstance!

Quote: Per se.

You about self-defense and the status of military weapons, you about ballistics ...

Uh, no! Do not mix!
The law on self-defense is one thing, the crooked laws on traumatic weapons (in particular, on energy and ballistics) are another, the legalization of short-barreled weapons (not permission to carry them all to those who wish, and getting right after going through the procedure check и Registration., with a burden responsibilities)!

Quote: Per se.

One, you need the right to your life, the other the right to someone else's death.

Please remind me in which paragraph of the SDA is prescribed right crush the pedestrian? In case of pedestrian non-compliance with traffic rules? Where exactly?

Quote: Per se.

You seem to be behind the technical side; you don’t see the essence of the problem, or do not want to see it.

I wrote above that, firstly, I do not mix them, and secondly, I point out the flaws of laws written by ignorant people.

Quote: Per se.

You do not have enough shooting gallery

You’ll laugh, but I’m most likely not buying a short barrel for myself. But I really want to have it! Just like with a driver’s license and a car: for a very long time I did not receive right, because there wasn’t possibilities (partially - desire and necessity) to use them.

Quote: Per se.

in civilian life I don’t want to build myself a cowboy.

Well don't build! Do you think something will change a lot?
Guys with hot blood both fired at weddings, they will. The people on the streets as there were no trunks ... and just a little more will be added.
Understand that subject to rulesIt’s quite burdensome to carry the short-barrel with you. Where to get it? At the shooting range, shoot mushrooms / berries in the forest and go on the road?
Almost nothing will change!

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

in Western jurisprudence it is customary who was the first to attack and to blame

This is what you tell the American citizen who was “condemned” because the thief who climbed into the garage of the “US citizen” could not get out of there. And he sat there Without Food (!) For a day or two (?) ...

[krops777]

He killed a man, only a court can qualify the adequacy of such a defense, render its verdict on a fair and understandable law

With this we have just the trouble, 4% of acquittals are almost within the statistical error, while in the USA 40%.

[neri73-r]

Quote: krops777

He killed a man, only a court can qualify the adequacy of such a defense, render its verdict on a fair and understandable law

With this we have just the trouble, 4% of acquittals are almost within the statistical error, while in the USA 40%.

If I had a choice, I would not want to be tried in the USA! There, in fact, it was officially established - whoever has the most money wins the court! Such is the Anglo-Saxon system of law !!! A good example is the accusation of Russia in the Skripal case, why the hell do you need evidence, everything is on emotions, fast court, the jury believed, in short the theater, not justice! No one needs the truth in the case!

[CentDo]

Do you really think that in Russia the one who is right wins the court? Or do you not know how our judges live?
And by the way, you are not quite right about the American court. Money of course is decided, but if both participants are US citizens, then in order for the real guilty person to be acquitted (or vice versa), finances alone may not be enough. What you described is only in relation to citizens of other states.

[krops777]

If I had a choice, I would not want to be tried in the USA!

And in Russia, the zone is guaranteed, and guilty or not.

[twviewer]

98% of convictions, if it weren’t for the FSB’s comrade, I think I wouldn’t have gotten off so easily, here without any weapons you can sit down for a couple of broken ribs.

[Baloo]

I remember the letter of Budantsev, I remember the stories in the news. Could the author cover this story in more detail? I don’t think she is the only one so exceptional.

[K.A.S.]

This is a VO story to look for!
From the side it looks like this: the arrow was clogged! The bandits wanted to overcome the business, and the hero of the article came to solve the problem! Ended with shooting! The story is muddy! Maybe the hero of the article was the restaurant itself, or the representative of the roof and there was a banal redistribution of spheres of influence for a strange biography for a lawyer, maybe harnessed to the sidekicks?
Imagine the bandits who run into the FSB officer even the former (and he painted them waiting for their problems), knowing what this threatens them with? I repeat, the story is muddy! Now they will do robingud from Budantsev!

[Same lech]

I repeat, the story is muddy! Now they will do robingud from Budantsev!

Of course muddy it wasn’t Budantsev who started all this ... from the moment the bandits broke into the restaurant an uncontrollable process began ... the police could stop all this but did not stop ... so the questions here should not be Budantsev but the police more than strangely behaved ... she certainly did not fulfill her function of protecting citizens and the law.

[Monster_Fat]

Well, from the fact that in the internet you can judge that the story is not that muddy, but also "stinks". The owner of the restaurant seems to be not a simple dude "from the street", but took the loot from the bandits and stirred up some business with them. Something is not divided. Assigned a showdown. Ended with shooting. In general, the story is characteristic of Russian reality in a "business" environment, where without a "roof" is still, well ....

[Baloo]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

Budantsev didn’t start all this

the hostess ordered the repair of Madame associated with bandits. When everything was done, I requested more contract. The hostess did not agree. Madame called the bandiuk. Budantsev, having the award weapon and the right to wear it, was fired back. The leader of the group crouched, including and in this case. High-ranking policemen who sympathize with bandits and they have suction, also lost their posts and not only.
I justify the actions of Budantsev, I am glad that he has beaten everyone.

[serge siberian]

KAAS, don’t stir up yourself. If Putin quit the KGB (later the FSB), did he mean someone you think was A. Sobchak? And there are a lot of people who vote for him. And you don’t have to pour water on people if they left the State. Security, please.

[andrej-shironov]

Well done Officer! I already wrote about it here!

[KVU-NSVD]

To promote a “hot” topic while there is a rating, and then immediately “forget” it, if it turned out to be wrong - this is a feature of most media. Even if they give a forced refutation, they "repent" on the last page and in small print ...

[thinker]

The report on the termination of the investigation against Budantsev was made only by the Regnum agency.

The author does not have a search engine?

The investigation closed the case against the participant of the shootout in the center of Moscow Budantsev

December 21 2017, 12: 21
http://tass.ru/proisshestviya/4830837

[Fox]

while in the country hahalevs are sitting in courts, and the gulls cover them, it will be so. I am simply surprised that they did not close it.

[Oleg Kozlov]

It is always and everywhere throughout the world called in one word - corruption. And corruption is permeated with literally everything. Therefore, for your actions you can get the order and glory, and you can get the term and shame. But they won’t remember about the law. Whoever decided is the law.

[mac789]

This is not corruption. Corruption in our current reality is a secondary, although useful to our leaders, phenomenon.
Everything goes to a new slave system.

[Alex66]

If such a person had to excuse the whole world, what can we say about ordinary people. Those. without the support of the media, there’s no way to find out what happens now, the courts sew cases using impunity. Why the judges do not answer for their “mistakes”, why we do not use case law, and you don’t use your own right to profitably, then you can’t put a simple way on how to explain double standards, and it’s convenient that one judge sees the other differently or before dinner at all judges one point of view after dinner another.

[Severok]

Sir, and you ask yourself: and the judges - WHO are they ??? They have a lot of privileges, which for some reason the shoulder straps are deprived of, they have an incredible payment for their "work", they have immunity, they have no right to be excluded from driving a vehicle of the State Automobile Inspectorate, they cannot write out a protocol on KoAPP.
Judges in Russia are appointed by the "guarantor", while in the Soviet Union it was an elective position - they were chosen by those who work at machine tools, raise children, and feed the country. She had to SERVE before the PEOPLE. And now they get it in a very muddy way.
Naturally, judges in modern reality do not care about people. They DO NOT know how to handle cases openly, honestly and impartially, as it should be.
It’s simpler and easier for them to muddle a guilty verdict, they go along the path, you know, of the least effort.
I have the honor.

[mac789]

In many ways, friendly words. But! During the trial, I was faced with three honest and decent judges. Although he was convicted. The judges honestly tried to understand the incident, but within the framework of the existing system they took, I am not afraid of these words, a wise and balanced decision. Honor and praise be to them.

[Rostislav]

Why are they silent? So do not pay. The paid ordered slops poured on the officer, but as it turned out, they shut up. Who will pay them articles about his defeat.

[Ham]

as the author correctly noted, people are sitting here for much less ... practically our entire law enforcement system is built up so that you can take any person from the street and blame him (and put him on!) for anything ... 95% of Russia's population - not legally competent and this also gives our valiant police (or police?) the opportunity to create lawlessness and lawlessness

[Radical]

Quote: Tatiana

The truth has triumphed - and this is the most important thing!
It is a pity that Budantsev lost two years of his life under investigation and arrest. For something too suspiciously for too long, his work was investigated by investigators.

It's simple - they gave money to investigators ...

[Radical]

Quote: Alex66

If such a person had to excuse the whole world, what can we say about ordinary people. Those. without the support of the media, there’s no way to find out what happens now, the courts sew cases using impunity. Why the judges do not answer for their “mistakes”, why we do not use case law, and you don’t use your own right to profitably, then you can’t put a simple way on how to explain double standards, and it’s convenient that one judge sees the other differently or before dinner at all judges one point of view after dinner another.

Questions to the Guarantor ...

[The Siberian barber]

Once, the police were called to help ...
Now, they often scare the police ....
Draw conclusions, gentlemen!

[Moisey19631]

And let him turn to me. We will promote it in the press. Well, if he needs it. My soap: [email protected].

[mac789]

Itself was more than once in a similar situation. The last time I received 5 months of condition. From the court’s verdict: “The testimony of the victim is credible since they are logical, and the victim has previously stated that he does not feel any hostility to the defendant ...” ... Bullshit ...
In the course of the proceedings, the victim was repeatedly caught at giving false evidence, as well as at the repeated provision of fake documents.
I think this practice is intentionally aimed at the destruction of the most combat-ready part of our people.
Here, our bosses will either hand over anyone who can provide some resistance, or provoke Maidan with their miracles, the result of which will again be the destruction of the most combat-ready part of our people in a bloody civil war

[serge siberian]

It’s not the first year that the law "On Self-Defense" has been in the State Duma, but it has been shifting to me. Who benefits? There is no answer. And our citizens receive sentences and terms. But the deputies "bake" tirelessly about people and put them on the cloth.

[Severok]

Author, please provide information about those media outlets with snout in tar and tar when covering this event!

[trak]

Personally, I can give an example. You can read about it in the Kommersant, with a great "intelligence" rolled on Budantseva.

[trak]

In! Another thing is XboxNews and the channel “Rain” in general, specifically and persistently ran into it, Budyantsev even filed a lawsuit.

[Igor Ryklin]

Andrey Kochuykov (Italian) is a long-time ally of the son of Aaron Katz (Luzhkov) in the markets
in Luzhniki. He was in his guard of the premises and the ice arena of the ballet on ice.
The FSB gave him a garage with an arsenal of ammunition near the Konkovo ​​metro station with arrest.
demanded 600 thousand dollars. He didn’t have it, they put him in prison for 6 years.
Denia for money prematurely left for Spain, fell into the orbit of Shakro and ended up in business on Roch
delsky street. Miraculously did not fall under the distribution of Budantsev. Now he is waiting for Bastrykin to decide
what to do with the main gangster Drymanov is still the main scout of Moscow.

[fa811147]

What are you talking about here? And now AA police are afraid to shoot in the air, AAA training firing is still at 3 AAA rounds per year. AAA God forbid you don’t give AAA weapons after a shift. Permanent AAA wearing is prohibited informally. AAA The bosses always think about avdrug and AAAAAAA, therefore, why the hell AAAAAAAAAA

[kunstkammer]

Quote: Per se.

with their foreign headquarters and overseas owners.

And here, too, the imperialists rummaged? I am begging! For those - the Russians are to blame for everything, but here: the granny fucks with an ax on the dark side of the rapist - that's all ... these are the machinations of overseas hosts with headquarters!
Yeah ... schizophrenia is contagious!

[Forever so]

Media needs a sensation to do business. Did you forget the main postulate of today's media ?? THEY MAKE NEWS. Done, gathered babosy and do the next. This is not the Soviet Union, what would an apology be uttered. Business, nothing personal !! ..