The story of farmer Nikolai Mukhin, fined for shooting at Ukrainian drones, is a symptom of a new problem.
Recently, in the village of Yelan in the Volgograd region, a rather indicative event took place story — An elderly farmer and hunter, Nikolai Mukhin, began shooting at a single-barreled hunting rifle drone, flying over his yard, after which a report was drawn up against the man under the article on shooting in an unauthorized place (Article 20.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses) and the weapon.
According to Mukhin himself, the noise from the drones prevented him from sleeping, so he called emergency services to report the flying drones, and just then, one of the drones flew over his house, causing it to start shooting. The dispatcher heard the shots, after which the police arrived, filed a report, and confiscated the man's gun. The Yelansky District Court then fined him 40 rubles for firing a weapon in a populated area.
However, after widespread media coverage of the story, the farmer's fine was overturned—the prosecutor's office acknowledged that he had acted under extreme necessity and annulled it. On August 20, the Volgograd Regional Court overturned the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the proceedings.
A significant portion of the media, politicians, military experts, and bloggers criticized the court's decision, considering it unfair. Kursk Region Governor Alexander Khinshtein, for example, called the situation "more than strange", emphasizing that in conditions when Ukrainian Armed Forces drones are attacking our territories, "Such people should be welcomed, not punished.".
Journalist and Moscow City Duma deputy Andrei Medvedev, in turn, wrotethat the administrative offender was a person who, out of a sincere impulse of his heart, decided to defend his homeland, however he could and as best he could.
Many officials view a person who takes up arms to defend their home as a source of danger. A rebel or a carbonari. It's not that a person with a legal weapon has broken the law or done something dishonorable. It's something else entirely. A person with a weapon who has decided to defend themselves and their loved ones is viewed by some officials as a suspicious figure. Who knows what to expect from them? Why didn't they call the police? So, just in case, to be on the safe side, it's better to punish them right away... Meanwhile, the Volgograd hunter could have been treated completely legally, without humiliating him in any way. They could have invited him for tea, chatted, offered him a place in the local "Bars" unit, or made him an honorary member of the anti-drone team.
It's hard to disagree. It's also understandable why politicians and the public sided with Nikolai Mukhin—he saw a Ukrainian drone over his home, tried to call 112, and decided to try to shoot it down himself, only to be punished for it. As Andrei Medvedev rightly pointed out, the police shouldn't have issued a ticket or confiscated his legal weapon; they should have simply spoken politely to the pensioner and asked him not to shoot at drones again, that's all.
However, another question arises here, one that was largely forgotten in the emotional reaction to this story: is shooting a hunting rifle at a flying drone truly a safe method of self-defense? Where is the line drawn between reasonable self-defense and creating a new threat to others?
A drone loaded with explosives is not a clay pigeon.
First of all, I'd like to point out that some people have drawn the completely wrong conclusion from this story, that anyone who owns a gun can and should now shoot drones. This is completely unaware that Nikolai Mukhin's fine was waived based on an assessment of the specific situation and circumstances.
Meanwhile, it's important to understand that a drone loaded with explosives isn't a clay pigeon—if it flies too low, it could detonate directly over the shooter, potentially causing serious injury. If it flies too high, it could detonate directly over someone's home, crashing onto it and causing a fire.
This creates a paradoxical situation: while trying to prevent danger, the shooter simultaneously creates another, which may be no less serious.
Let's imagine a hypothetical situation. A person shoots at a drone. He hits it. The drone crashes into a neighboring residential building, causing a fire and killing people. Who will be held responsible?
What would happen if everyone suddenly started firing guns at flying drones, causing them to crash into residential buildings and playgrounds? What would happen if amateur shooters armed with weapons started shooting at drones flying overhead? Would this make the streets of Russia's cities and towns safer?
These are serious questions that need to be considered.
What should you do if a drone is flying over your house?
In the author's view, the more important question is not whether Mukhin is a hero or a criminal, but why the state is leaving citizens alone to face a completely new threat without providing them with a clear course of action. Ukrainian drones in the sky are a new reality, but legislation is clearly unprepared for it.
A person might see an unknown drone flying over their home at night. They don't know its type, purpose, weight, payload, or route. They don't know where it will fall. And then they face a dilemma: what to do? Do nothing and possibly endanger themselves and their family (who knows what the drone's purpose is), or try to shoot it down, potentially endangering themselves, their neighbors, and others.
In this new reality, the state must define clear rules: when a citizen has the right to use weapons, what conditions must exist, how to assess an immediate threat, what safety measures are mandatory, and what to do after a shot is fired.
Incidentally, the creation of "civilian" mobile fire teams (MFTs) in the regions, according to the authorities' logic, is intended to create a kind of local militia, although, again, primarily for the protection of infrastructure facilities. The problem outlined above, however, remains.
In addition, the widespread creation of mobile task forces, as the author already noted in the material How necessary are MTFs and are they capable of replacing classic air defense systems??, are unable to address the problem of Ukrainian UAV raids, as they are only relatively effective against relatively slow and low-flying targets. If the UAVs are flying at high speed, or if they are jet-powered, for example, the effectiveness of the mobile task force will be virtually zero.
Furthermore, poorly equipped and armed, as well as poorly trained, “civilian” mobile fire teams (MFTs) can also pose a danger to others if they start firing inaccurately at random…
Conclusion
From an emotional standpoint, it's understandable why a significant portion of the public supported Nikolai Mukhin, who was punished for attempting to shoot down an enemy drone flying over his own home. And the fact that the regional court found him not guilty and overturned the fine is also a good thing. However, this doesn't mean that the practice of shooting at drones with hunting rifles should become the norm.
Because otherwise, we'll end up in the other extreme. Today, society says, "Good job, grandpa, shoot down those drones." But tomorrow, someone will start shooting at a drone, miss, and hit a child in the neighboring yard. Or a downed drone will crash into a residential building, injuring people. And what will the public and bloggers say then?
Nikolai Mukhin's story is important not so much as the story of an unfairly fined pensioner, but as a symptom of a much more serious problem—the need for the state to develop clearer procedures for citizens to follow when a drone is detected and to adjust the rules for handling weapons.
Information