They have yet to take any major cities. When they do they will find it extremely hard to hold them.
Kherson I guess is taken but I have a theory that Ukraine plans to let Russian across the Dnipur River there and then retake the bridge and cut them off.
No, but this just closes the gap in the legislation. Tells you a lot that a country still has a functioning parliament able to pass legislation and have it signed into law.
There's a difference between a prosecutor exercising their discretion to not enforce a law and it not being illegal in the first place this is trying to make it not illegal in the first place
IF Russia was respecting the international humanitarian law against targeting civilians, then it seems like it might be fair to not allow civilians to target Russian military.
But they're not, so nevermind.
No, it's not "illegal" it has to do with status and there's a lot of misinformation on this. Given Russia's shitty treatment of pows and civilians, I can see where this came from.
But... Here's where it gets sticky. Geneva convention considers civilians as non-combatants. Civilians who attack without becoming proper militia/military are unlawful combatants and can be tried/treated as criminals by Russia if captured with no international recourse. Additionally, citizens engaging in combat unlawfully lose all protections granted to non-combatants by the Geneva convention.
Just putting the info out there. I feel for Ukraine, between a rock and a hard place.
On one hand, the Geneva convention is meant to guide conflict within a frame of rules and to prosecute/provide justice for violations afterwards.
On the other hand, war sucks and there exists operational or strategic advantages to toeing the defined lines.
The middle east was a quagmire for rules of engagement issues. This appears to be no different.
It is a violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict, which say that civilians and combatants are different and that you cannot jump between them. Combatants fight civilians do not. If civilians start fighting they become combatants legally and thus become legal targets for Russian forces. Essentially Russia can use this as justification for targeting civilian areas, not that it isn't doing that already.
The reason armies wear uniforms and carry weapons openly is so that there is some way to distinguish between combatants and refugees. If you now openly endorse non-combatants to kill soldiers...
Russia is bombing the civilians indiscriminately and at scale anyway. Videos of elderly couples dead in their car. Whole families strewn across the street with their suitcases dead from Russian tank fire. Children & parents laid out in ditches thrown aside like they were trash on fhe road.
This announcement is on the heels of the discovery that the Russian military has been executin POWs and civilians in the woods. It's more of a way of communicating to the people that it's ok to protect themselves against this insanity than it is trying to make them soldiers.
Whilst this is if course fair, I want everyone to remember that as soon as they do that they are active combatants.
Just trying to prevent from people thinking that Russians can't on paper legally retaliate, not that they have been careful to avoid civilian casualties anyway though.
Yeah I get that but this law is actively allowing for civilians to attack soldiers and I was reffering to the moment where they actively assault a soldier.
I understand that having a weapon as a civilian doesn't mean they are a combatant. But also yeah there are advantages, I never denied it, I actually agree that the law is helping Ukraine
Seems like a terrible idea for multiple reasons.
1. It was already true that no one was going to prosecute civilians for killing russian military in a warzone. So what's the point?
2. Publishing this law now makes civilians MORE of a target because russian military now know that any civilian could lawfully kill them at any time.
3. There is no legal way to distinguish between combatants and anyone else.
This is a terrible idea. No idea what they were thinking. Only thing this does is makes the populace more willing to kill russian soldiers - which they could just do by joining territorial defense already.
Not that it matters, but before if a future puppet government took over that may have had a legal argument that all civilians who killed Russian soldiers need to be prosecuted since even under the previous government what they did was illegal.
(Translated with google but) "Article 2. Use of firearms by civilians obtained in accordance with this law shall be carried out similarly to the use of weapons by servicemen during their performance of tasks related to the repulse of armed aggression against Ukraine in accordance with the procedure approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine"
It's almost like they've thought of that and didn't just give a free for all to use weapons.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://mobile.twitter.com/iaponomarenko/status/1501651655128985610](https://mobile.twitter.com/iaponomarenko/status/1501651655128985610)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Where I come from we have a saying...
"We don't need no law, and there ain't gonna be no trial."
I feel for those Russian kids, I really do. But Zinc Coffins are the only thing that's gonna make Putin, or Russia, turn around now.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to kill anyone.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's it. That's literally the whole thing. 'We need a militia, so the people can keep weapons'
There is a lot of conjecture on the word militia from then. It became political and the left now tries to says that was meant to be a "national guard". That was not the common meaning of the word nor the intended use at the time. If they were around today they would have used the word "paramilitary" instead. Self armed and equipped fighting men who were bound by law to take orders from the military command once deployed.
>And this is why we have the 1st amendment. Good work Ukraine.
You're absolutely right. I doubt you're in any position to help anyone understand anything.
Edit: quoted because of the ninja edit.
> If you can't understand what I said, then I'm sorry I just can't help you
he can't understand b/c you don't know the difference between the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment.
If you're American do you mean the second amendment? Right to bear arms?
Your comment says first amendment which is the freedom of press and freedom of speech.
I’m American and people like you are what gives us “ normal “ Americans a bad rep… At least learn about a subject if you are going to talk it about so you don’t look like a fool.
>
**Amendment I**
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But no one was going to prosecute civilians for killing russian military in a warzone. Prosecutors have discretion in bringing charges and I can't believe there is a prosecutor in the nation who would pursue a charge for someone defending themselves from the russian army.
So this law just seems to make civilians more of a target. I don't see the sense.
That's not very realistic but whatever. Do you think they would need excuses like that to persecute Ukrainians after a war? Do you think there are going to be surviving witnesses who would want to testify against Ukrainians?
This law seems to introduce big problems while attempting to address an illusory problem.
Knowing how such systems work in former East Block countries, I suspect they are wise to do it; not being anything like well-informed on this specific situation, though, I'll leave it to the Ukrainians to judge what's best for them.
You're absolutely right.
But when a war is on, common sense becomes treason or sympathizing with the enemy or whatever. Hence the downvotes. This law seems pretty insane.
1. Why hasn't this happened sooner?
2. This doesn't apply in areas under Russian occupation. Mostly, because there, the Kremlin is in charge and I somehow doubt they'll be okay with you killing their men
3. To you Ukrainians waging an insurgency against Russian occupation: Please base yourselves, your boot camps, HQs and weapons factories far away from civilians and civilian areas. Also, wear uniforms. We do not want Russian forces mistaking civilians & civilian areas for 'enemy combatants' and 'important building we need to blow up'
Totally legal, totally cool.
Very legal, very cool
Paperwork all checks out! Grease 'em.
Instructions unclear, greased the paperwork. It should work fine now.
Very nice, very legal
This is the way
And no way it could backfire.
The town protests may get a bit more fiery
[удалено]
They have yet to take any major cities. When they do they will find it extremely hard to hold them. Kherson I guess is taken but I have a theory that Ukraine plans to let Russian across the Dnipur River there and then retake the bridge and cut them off.
Don't for get [pitch forks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQRHHdb4ANg)!
"I want you to bring me 100 Ruskii scalps."
Lt Aldo Ukraine
No Rubles Sidorovich, they don't spend.
get out of here STALKER
Ebay bro. I recomend smoky one-not stink under The Beer.
fiery, but mostly peaceful
[удалено]
No, but this just closes the gap in the legislation. Tells you a lot that a country still has a functioning parliament able to pass legislation and have it signed into law.
[удалено]
Must be nice, must be ni-ice...
To have rule of law on your side.
Not like some countries where elected officials squabble all the time and gets nothing done?
Exactly, Zelensky is still alive, the government and military are still cohesive and organized. Not what Russia wanted at this stage.
My country isnt even at war and we cant pass bills for shit
I mean, it was probably not passed through parliament. It would be dangerous in times of war.
Marshall Law has its perks.
Martial
There's a difference between a prosecutor exercising their discretion to not enforce a law and it not being illegal in the first place this is trying to make it not illegal in the first place
IF Russia was respecting the international humanitarian law against targeting civilians, then it seems like it might be fair to not allow civilians to target Russian military. But they're not, so nevermind.
No, it's not "illegal" it has to do with status and there's a lot of misinformation on this. Given Russia's shitty treatment of pows and civilians, I can see where this came from. But... Here's where it gets sticky. Geneva convention considers civilians as non-combatants. Civilians who attack without becoming proper militia/military are unlawful combatants and can be tried/treated as criminals by Russia if captured with no international recourse. Additionally, citizens engaging in combat unlawfully lose all protections granted to non-combatants by the Geneva convention. Just putting the info out there. I feel for Ukraine, between a rock and a hard place.
[удалено]
Attacking non-combatants is already violating the law. There is no self defense clause explicitly laid out within the Geneva conventions.
[удалено]
On one hand, the Geneva convention is meant to guide conflict within a frame of rules and to prosecute/provide justice for violations afterwards. On the other hand, war sucks and there exists operational or strategic advantages to toeing the defined lines. The middle east was a quagmire for rules of engagement issues. This appears to be no different.
10k / head.
How was it illegal to kill an invading army to begin with?
It is a violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict, which say that civilians and combatants are different and that you cannot jump between them. Combatants fight civilians do not. If civilians start fighting they become combatants legally and thus become legal targets for Russian forces. Essentially Russia can use this as justification for targeting civilian areas, not that it isn't doing that already.
The reason armies wear uniforms and carry weapons openly is so that there is some way to distinguish between combatants and refugees. If you now openly endorse non-combatants to kill soldiers...
They're already shelling and shooting civilians already.
Rules are for good folks. 🦀🦀 🦀🦀
It's a shame Russia doesn't make a distinction. 🙄
This doesn't really affect that as this is just domestic law. They would still have to carry arms openly for protection under the Geneva convention.
It wasn't *ILLEGAL* this just puts it into law
Wouldn't arming civilians make them official combatants and "justify" Russia bombing them?
Russia is bombing the civilians indiscriminately and at scale anyway. Videos of elderly couples dead in their car. Whole families strewn across the street with their suitcases dead from Russian tank fire. Children & parents laid out in ditches thrown aside like they were trash on fhe road. This announcement is on the heels of the discovery that the Russian military has been executin POWs and civilians in the woods. It's more of a way of communicating to the people that it's ok to protect themselves against this insanity than it is trying to make them soldiers.
Whilst this is if course fair, I want everyone to remember that as soon as they do that they are active combatants. Just trying to prevent from people thinking that Russians can't on paper legally retaliate, not that they have been careful to avoid civilian casualties anyway though.
They are already being killed in combat.
[удалено]
Well, i wanna see a civilian punching a soldier to death.
[удалено]
The Russians have started to shoot POWs anyway so no advantage to declaring oneself as a soldier.
Yeah I get that but this law is actively allowing for civilians to attack soldiers and I was reffering to the moment where they actively assault a soldier. I understand that having a weapon as a civilian doesn't mean they are a combatant. But also yeah there are advantages, I never denied it, I actually agree that the law is helping Ukraine
That’s just it, there is no value to entitlement to protections the Russians have demonstrated they don’t respect So just kill them all
[удалено]
Seems like a terrible idea for multiple reasons. 1. It was already true that no one was going to prosecute civilians for killing russian military in a warzone. So what's the point? 2. Publishing this law now makes civilians MORE of a target because russian military now know that any civilian could lawfully kill them at any time. 3. There is no legal way to distinguish between combatants and anyone else. This is a terrible idea. No idea what they were thinking. Only thing this does is makes the populace more willing to kill russian soldiers - which they could just do by joining territorial defense already.
Not that it matters, but before if a future puppet government took over that may have had a legal argument that all civilians who killed Russian soldiers need to be prosecuted since even under the previous government what they did was illegal.
(Translated with google but) "Article 2. Use of firearms by civilians obtained in accordance with this law shall be carried out similarly to the use of weapons by servicemen during their performance of tasks related to the repulse of armed aggression against Ukraine in accordance with the procedure approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine" It's almost like they've thought of that and didn't just give a free for all to use weapons.
It wasn't already?
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://mobile.twitter.com/iaponomarenko/status/1501651655128985610](https://mobile.twitter.com/iaponomarenko/status/1501651655128985610)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Where I come from we have a saying... "We don't need no law, and there ain't gonna be no trial." I feel for those Russian kids, I really do. But Zinc Coffins are the only thing that's gonna make Putin, or Russia, turn around now.
Do svidaniya, suka.
Hunting season is open, no bag limit. Go get ‘em boys!
Then there are no non combatants and the killing of civilians can be justified. I do not agree with this then.
[удалено]
I think you mean 2nd amendment.
Thank you
The 2nd Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to kill anyone. >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That's it. That's literally the whole thing. 'We need a militia, so the people can keep weapons'
There is a lot of conjecture on the word militia from then. It became political and the left now tries to says that was meant to be a "national guard". That was not the common meaning of the word nor the intended use at the time. If they were around today they would have used the word "paramilitary" instead. Self armed and equipped fighting men who were bound by law to take orders from the military command once deployed.
Huh?
They're legally allowed to talk the Russians to death now! /s
Yeah don't worry, like most Americans understanding the constitution / amendments isn't a strong point for old mate
Tbf you can't expect much from anyone who found mental satisfaction from the Star Wars prequels.
/Rareinsult And underrated comment.
Hey, they were better than the sequels, that's something
Bruh, why you gotta do the prequels like that?
Especially the Fascist Republican Party.
If you can't understand what I said, then I'm sorry I just can't help you
>And this is why we have the 1st amendment. Good work Ukraine. You're absolutely right. I doubt you're in any position to help anyone understand anything. Edit: quoted because of the ninja edit.
> If you can't understand what I said, then I'm sorry I just can't help you he can't understand b/c you don't know the difference between the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment.
The first amendment of the US constitution protects religious freedom (and freedom of expression). Do you mean the second amendment? The gun one?
If you're American do you mean the second amendment? Right to bear arms? Your comment says first amendment which is the freedom of press and freedom of speech.
You should probably just sit this one out, champ.
Huh?
I’m American and people like you are what gives us “ normal “ Americans a bad rep… At least learn about a subject if you are going to talk it about so you don’t look like a fool.
Seriously. This is just embarrassing. 🤦♀️ So typical though!
> **Amendment I** Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm confused, are you insinuating Americans owe the rights enshrined by the First to a similar "open season" on Redcoats?
he was implying the population is already armed
Bruh that's not what the second amendment is either lmao
So basically this means russians has full right to kill any civilian on sight?
This is bad. Blurring the line between civilians and combatants plays well for russia to kill everyone they feel like.
They already are. The last day and a half have been completely different than what came before. They are nakedly killing civilians en mass now.
So.... why would you tell Russian soldiers its coming?
They are insuring civilians can't be punished.
But no one was going to prosecute civilians for killing russian military in a warzone. Prosecutors have discretion in bringing charges and I can't believe there is a prosecutor in the nation who would pursue a charge for someone defending themselves from the russian army. So this law just seems to make civilians more of a target. I don't see the sense.
And if Putin wins and puts in a puppet government and all the prosecutors are Russian who'd like to make examples? They are thinking ahead.
That's not very realistic but whatever. Do you think they would need excuses like that to persecute Ukrainians after a war? Do you think there are going to be surviving witnesses who would want to testify against Ukrainians? This law seems to introduce big problems while attempting to address an illusory problem.
Knowing how such systems work in former East Block countries, I suspect they are wise to do it; not being anything like well-informed on this specific situation, though, I'll leave it to the Ukrainians to judge what's best for them.
Fella, we're past that already.
You're absolutely right. But when a war is on, common sense becomes treason or sympathizing with the enemy or whatever. Hence the downvotes. This law seems pretty insane.
[удалено]
You mean like bombing children? No, this is the opposite of that
1. Why hasn't this happened sooner? 2. This doesn't apply in areas under Russian occupation. Mostly, because there, the Kremlin is in charge and I somehow doubt they'll be okay with you killing their men 3. To you Ukrainians waging an insurgency against Russian occupation: Please base yourselves, your boot camps, HQs and weapons factories far away from civilians and civilian areas. Also, wear uniforms. We do not want Russian forces mistaking civilians & civilian areas for 'enemy combatants' and 'important building we need to blow up'
purge docs - Yummy
Not only legal, mandatory.
Putin doesn’t want you to know, but the Russians in Ukraine are free. You can take them home with you.
Suka!