People study the Kadochnikov Systema to protect oneself and the one they love. Alexey Alexeyevich Kadochnikov teaches to be responsible for your actions and use force and skills of the russian hand to hand combat reasonably. He insists that his disciples used the Kadochnikov Systema only as a martial art for self defense. But actual life is unpredictable especially in an extreme case and the situation may go out of control.
Unlike the necessary defence when the harm is done to a person who’s doing an injurious to the public offence when we speak about the extreme necessity the legal interests are violated (health and rights of other people).
Despite the similar mechanisms of implementing the notions of “the extreme necessity” and “the necessary defence” have several radical differences. The constitutional provision “to defend you rights and freedoms by all means allowed by the law” (part 2, article 45) can be used not only when repelling an injurious to the public offence but in relation to the other perils. The institute of the extreme necessity also implies harming as a way to defend your own or other socially important welfare.
Meanwhile these defensive measures are equal to a legally defined crime regulated by the criminal code. Otherwise there is no necessity to bring up the term “extreme necessity” (or “necessary defence”) as a circumstance excluding the notion of “crime”.
The state of the extreme necessity is defined by the collision of two interests; one of them that is less significant is scarified to the other that is more important.
Legal right to use the extreme necessity is stipulated by the fact that a person’s interests are guaranteed by the law. If your interests are endangered the law allows you disregarding the other less significant interests. In this case harm-doing is deprived of such characteristics as injurious to the public and criminal offence. In some situations it is even regarded as a deed of public utility. Meanwhile you can’t defend illegal interests to the prejudice of the legal ones.
When speaking about the extreme necessity the harm-doing is allowed for prevention of the danger to the person or some other people, or to the interests of the society or the state. The danger should be immediate that is if it was not eliminated at once there would be direct harmful consequences for the person, the society or the state. Probable contingent danger doesn’t permit the state of the extreme necessity.
The compulsory condition of its rightfulness consists in the fact that there was no other way to remove the threat without harming other legal interests.
Exceeding the limits of the extreme necessity is an obvious discrepancy between the harm done and the degree of the threatening danger and circumstances of the matter.
The exceeding the limits of the extreme necessity entails the criminal liability if the harm was done intentionally.
Miscomprehension of the harm-doing in a state of the extreme necessity may exempt from the responsibility as this is not his fault.
The article 2.7 “The Extreme Necessity” from the Code of Administrative Procedure exempts a person who committed an administrative infraction in the state of the extreme necessity from the administrative responsibility and doesn’t refer such actions to the administrative infractions. In the similar way the institute of the extreme necessity is interpreted by the criminal code. The article 39 of the Criminal Code states that harming the interests regulated by the punitive law in the state of the extreme necessity is not a crime.
The institute of the extreme necessity encourages the social activity of a person of the safe type, allows him or her to participate in preventing the encroaching on a man’s rights and interests of the society and the state.
The objects of the defence from the threatening danger are a personality, rights of the given person or some other people, legal interests of the society and the state.
This principle directs the person of the safe type to taking part in solving this problem meaning removing danger jeopardizing life, health, rights and freedoms of a man.
When talking about the state of the extreme necessity there are may be following sources of danger: domestic animals, cars, a man.
The harming legal interests is justified if the person has no other choice to save some more valuable welfare.
To compare the harm done you should consider social meaning of both sides: protected and violated. When comparing life and health of a man with the property interests the preference is given to the human’s life and health.
If a person of the safe type committed an administrative infraction in the state of the extreme necessity the case should be dismissed.
In his system Aleksey Alekseyevich Kadochnikov doesn’t forget about the moral aspect of the fight. Before studying the Kadochnikov System and the russian hand to hand combat, the disciples learn that power is responsibility. Aleksey Alekseyevich Kadochnikov calls his system “an invisible weapon” and charges his followers with responsibility for its improper use. In his course the author teaches moral lessons and the code of ethics which are supposed to help a fighter to save face and always be a human being.
You are welcome to leave comments concerning this topic.
