Russia’s FSB Allowed to Shoot Women, Children & Disabled People

Russia's lower house of parliament has approved a bill letting Federal Security Service (FSB) officers shoot at crowds, as well as at women and children under certain conditions, the Slon.Ru news portal reported Tuesday.

The State Duma passed the bill in the second, third and final reading at once. The bill changes the Federal Security service law, in order to give its officers more powers in using their weapons.

The bill proposes to give officers the power to use firearms against crowds of people to prevent acts of terror, including taking hostages and armed attacks on governmental buildings.

The amendments also allow FSB officers to shoot at women, children and disabled people in cases of a terror act or armed attack on civilians and law enforcers
www.themoscowtimes.com...
.

Wow Russia is thinking to ratchet up things a lot, it's not a done deal but it's out there and if this is what Putin wants then that's what Putin gets, yes I know in certain situations one may need to fire into crowd to stop a greater tragedy from happening such as shooting down a civilian aircraft carrying children taken over by terrorist heading towards NY or LA on a suicide mission or carrying a nuke device , but this is kinda over the top.

a reply to: Spider879

Really? Over the top?

So, shooting a woman is over the top? Chivalry is somehow brought into focus whilest dealing with "terrorists"?


That's quite the interesting take you've got there......

Shame on you for the propaganda post dude, just shame.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Shame on you for the propaganda post dude, just shame.

Nonononono....

You don't get it....

You JUST don't go around shooting women, children, and disabled people! They cannot harm anyone...No...not at all!!!

Edit: So is this terrorist women and children and disabled people or collateral damage caught up?

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: Spider879

Really? Over the top?

So, shooting a woman is over the top? Chivalry is somehow brought into focus whilest dealing with "terrorists"?


That's quite the interesting take you've got there......

The point is protest can be labeled terrorism and put down violently, have you been following the direction Russia has taken then you would know it's more about power grab and crushing political opponents.

a reply to: Spider879

I'm confused. Before this, were they only allowed to shoot at able-bodied adult males exclusively to prevent a terror attack?

I mean, what you are saying sounds bad but isn't our own US forces allowed to do the same thing? Our police beat handicapped people to death in non-terrorist scenarios so I'm curious how this is all interpreted.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Shame on you for the propaganda post dude, just shame.

Nonononono....

You don't get it....

You JUST don't go around shooting women, children, and disabled people! They cannot harm anyone...No...not at all!!!

We get it, you'd shoot women and children and the disabled instead of just practicing your aim in training.

How brave.

Charlie....Me thinks you're taking this a bit personally.

My sarcasm was directed at the idea that someone would not shoot a woman, child, or disabled person who actively posed a threat to others. To me, it's a simple equation to work out in a nanosecond.

If you're going to inflict violence upon others, it doesn't matter what gender or age you are...or if you're disabled or not.......if an armed serviceman (Officer, Soldier, etc) deems it necessary to act, then so be it.

Now, this is why I do not flat out proclaim myself to be a buddhist, as I am clearly not a pacifist.


Charlie, let me underscore this....I am NOT saying to go and target anyone because of perceived religious affiliation. You and I have talked before, and I think you already know this about me.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Spider879

I'm confused. Before this, were they only allowed to shoot at able-bodied adult males exclusively to prevent a terror attack?

I mean, what you are saying sounds bad but isn't our own US forces allowed to do the same thing? Our police beat handicapped people to death in non-terrorist scenarios so I'm curious how this is all interpreted.

There has been no interpretation, there has been only a thread with obvious intent. Anybody with any intelligence whatsoever will see through this for what it is. It is propaganda, pure and simple.

a reply to: Spider879

Aside from the obvious such as they have a bomb strapped to them or are overtly shooting a gun at innocent people, can anyone give me a god damn good reason how under "certain circumstances" legislation would be passed to shoot children?

Either this is a piss-take hoax, a fear mongering message to a certain sect of society or Putin has lost the plot.

I'm going with option #2.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Spider879

I'm confused. Before this, were they only allowed to shoot at able-bodied adult males exclusively to prevent a terror attack?

I mean, what you are saying sounds bad but isn't our own US forces allowed to do the same thing? Our police beat handicapped people to death in non-terrorist scenarios so I'm curious how this is all interpreted.

No off course they were allowed to shoot terrorist, remember some yrs ago in some Russian theater, what I am getting from this is once they labeled a protest terrorism all bets are off.
And while the U.S do shoot unarmed people they are not under any legal basis to do so.

a reply to: Spider879

You know, I read nothing in your quoted source stating that non-violent protests could be deemed terrorist.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Even I got Nullafides sarcasm man, and I am thick as two shorts!

a reply to: nullafides

My mistake.

I read the OP as to be collateral damage, not people involved in terrorism themselves.

My apologies fella.

Merry Christmas, too.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Spider879

Aside from the obvious such as they have a bomb strapped to them or are overtly shooting a gun at innocent people, can anyone give me a god damn good reason how under "certain circumstances" legislation would be passed to shoot children?

Either this is a piss-take hoax, a fear mongering message to a certain sect of society or Putin has lost the plot.

I'm going with option #2.

Well lets see if Putin signs it into law then we will know for certain.

a reply to: Jonjonj

It's half past 2 in the morning, Jon.

Give me some lee-way here.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

No worries, my friend

I most definitely understand how you or any other muslim might feel not only on edge but a bit jumpy on any topic along these lines in current times...

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Spider879

I'm confused. Before this, were they only allowed to shoot at able-bodied adult males exclusively to prevent a terror attack?

I mean, what you are saying sounds bad but isn't our own US forces allowed to do the same thing? Our police beat handicapped people to death in non-terrorist scenarios so I'm curious how this is all interpreted.

No off course they were allowed to shoot terrorist, remember some yrs ago in some Russian theater, what I am getting from this is once they labeled a protest terrorism all bets are off.
And while the U.S do shoot unarmed people they are not under any legal basis to do so.

Ah, I see where you are going with this now. That makes more sense.

I've been expecting the US to do something along the lines of granting police the authority to arbitrarily classify citizens as enemy combatants in order to bypass protocol. I can see a move like what Putin is doing raising a few red flags for me personally if that were here.

Then again, they aren't exactly paragons of human rights over there.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Here's the straight and narrow of it all...

If I had the means to take out someone who was showing intent to seriously harm others, I would.

It doesn't matter if that person is a woman, a child, disabled, a nun, or even a clown.

And honestly, the idea that LEGISLATION is needed to be passed for something so common sense?

Well, it just lacks common sense in the first place.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: Spider879

You know, I read nothing in your quoted source stating that non-violent protests could be deemed terrorist.

Ok here is what I am getting at do you remember the anti-Gay propaganda ban, it morphed from not having any obviously gay stuff in media and such to protesting against homophobia, that's how it works.
I do not believe for one second if a child is strapped to a bomb heading towards a crowd that no one would take him /her out.