Self-defense of civil rights
Self-defense of civil rights is the commission ofactions that are aimed at protecting property or personal rights (their own, other people or their state). Such measures should not be prohibited by law; they are limited by the norms of legislation. These include actions taken to protect property, as well as those necessary for self-defense, forced by extreme necessity. These measures should not infringe upon anyone's rights and interests, or else they will have to compensate for the harm caused by their use. On the other hand, if the defender, in the face of danger to property, life, health, by any actions inflicts harm on the offender, then this is justified. In this case, we are talking about measures taken in case of emergency.
Self-defense of civil rights includeactions aimed at ending the offense. Their legitimacy and legitimacy is determined by the Civil Code, including the twelfth and fourteenth articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Self-defense of civil rights includes suchconcept, as a necessary self-defense. If in this case the attacker (offender) was harmed, then he should not be reimbursed. But only in the event that the limits of necessary self-defense have not been exceeded. This aspect has repeatedly provoked legal disputes. What is needed to recognize the appropriateness of this or that method of self-defense? For the actions of the defender to be considered legitimate, it is necessary to prove that the attack was real and illegal. Self-defense of civil rights in this case will be recognized if its limits were not exceeded. The untimely use of protection is by no means in favor of the defending one. Not all unlawful behavior requires defensive defensive actions. Self-defense on the street should be commensurate with the attack - in other words, it is aimed only at repelling an attack, protecting property, life and health of one's own, loved ones and other people, not being targeted for reprisal against the offender. Yet even in this case the encroachment of the victim on any legitimate interests of the defender must be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance. The legal consequence of self-defense should be the lack of compensation for harm caused to the aggressor.
The right to self-defense includes actions,committed in times of emergency. Such measures can be aimed at eliminating the danger threatening to any third parties, and even the pest itself. The need for such actions should be justified by the absence of any other way to prevent trouble. In this case, the harm caused should not be higher than the one that was prevented. If, however, a person committed actions aimed at self-defense exceeded the limits of necessary self-defense, it must compensate for the damage caused.
To have weapons for self-defense, you need to obtain a license to purchase it in the police department.
Further, the measures necessary to protect certainrights, including property, should not contradict the legislative norms. For example, it is perfectly legitimate to use many types of security devices - locks, alarms, etc. However, there have been cases of using traps or fences enclosed by barbed wire under electric voltage to protect against thieves. The illegality of the use of such funds is obvious, because they are aimed not only at protection of property, but also at causing harm to health and life to a possible offender, and not only to the offender, but also to law-abiding persons who can, by carelessness, suffer from the use of such funds. In the event that the use of such methods has caused any damage to someone, then it must be reimbursed. In this case, too, it is a question of self-protection of civil rights should not be exceeded.