Is an approach "Annihilated" acceptable?

Recent joint statements of press-services of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Prosecutor General"s Office, State Security Service, as well as other statements of these structures have declared the following: "...a person offering an armed resistance was annihilated", "..(his name)...was said to have been annihilated", "...Police officers resorted to arms ...and criminals (their names)..were annihilated", "...a person in charge of terror was annihilated".

A question immediately arises: are policemen or other law-enforcement officers authorized "to annihilate" and if "yes", in what cases, against whom and how can they use their powers?

To sort out things, let"s look at country"s laws. A law on police refers to "annihilate" just once. And again, it is used in respect of animals, not humans.

Thus, Article 26 of the law regulating the use of physical force and arms by police, as well as part IV of the law says as follows:"a police officer may use a firearms in the following cases: Clause в 7 quotes" annihilation of an animal attacking a man and posing a real threat", i.e. it is talked of an animal that attacked a man.

In other words, an expression "was annihilated" may be used by law-enforcement bodies in respect of animated objects or plants (drug-containing), not humans.

Another question arises: should the police use arms to neutralize a person suspect in terror (crime) a person who offered resistance?

A reply lies in Article 26 mentioned above. The law considers it possible to use firearms in several cases; however, the law invests powers for neutralization of an armed person or a suspect, not his annihilation. In other words, neutralization does not mean annihilation; it means to break down man"s resistance. An aim of police and other law-enforcement bodies is to neutralize a suspect and ensure his condemnation, not to punish him by means of annihilation. It is a court of justice"s authority to establish if a defendant is a criminal, terrorist or innocent. For this reason there is a notion of "conventional use of arms" in the jurisprudence.

It has to be kept in mind that the police should first warn a suspect verbally and then try a warning shot into the air. This warning shot should be used against a resisting person, not against a human. In the last resort, arms may be used against a resisting person but with a certain reservation. A shot should be directed at lower extremities, not at a head or a heart. If possible, a suspect should survive and appear in court. If a suspect is affected by several bullets and dies due to bleeding, the fact of his death is illustrative of abuse of authority and inadequate behavior of a shooter. It is no mere coincidence that Article 27 of the law stresses the necessity of relief action to an aggrieved person. Given the above, law-enforcement bodies should not "ANNIHILATE" suspects who resisted or tried to resist. They should be neutralized and appear at court. Policemen should catch a suspect alive even if he is wounded and thus bring him to trial. In this case the police is acknowledged to have fulfilled their task properly.

To my thinking, press-services of power-holding structures have to prepare their reports in keeping with law and voice their regret in case of suspects" death in the course of their neutralization. It is the jurisdiction of the court to pass a judgment about a suspect being a terrorist (criminal) and announce it publicly. A person annihilated before the court is found not guilty under Article 63 of the Constitution, since he was killed without a court judgment.