In Ussuriysk, a veteran without a leg got into an argument with a car boor in the parking lot.
He took a seat for the disabled, and in response to the remark he snapped, promising to tear off the veteran’s second leg.
Actually, the threat itself was not recorded in the video provided by the veteran, but judging by the nature of the conversation, there is no reason to doubt that the veteran is truthfully describing the conflict.
And then the video ends up online.
The preface to it says that a certain man from the parking lot threatened a North Military District veteran to tear off his leg, and he lost the other while saving his comrades near Ugledar.
The public, of course, was outraged.
And it’s very good that she reacts this way.
It is clear that our society will never offend soldiers and veterans.
But still, let's look at the second side of this conflict.
Moreover, we have all the possibilities for this: law enforcement officers quickly found this man and detained him.
In general, our country is huge.
Every day, in different cities, towns and villages, hundreds of domestic clashes take place, in which our citizens threaten to kill each other, tear off legs, arms and heads.
But when it doesn’t come down to physical action, law enforcement officers prefer not to get involved in such cases: “Well, you never know who said something to anyone!”
The maximum that such skirmishes usually result in is administrative punishment.
But the Ussuri boor faces up to seven years in prison - a criminal case has been opened against him under articles of threat of causing grievous bodily harm and hooliganism.
Let one of you say to this: “Serves him right!
He threatened a veteran!”
And I will object to this: but in this case, justice becomes selective.
And selectivity is fraught with disunity and social discontent.
It pits one part of society against another.
Personally, I want law enforcement agencies to respond equally to a threat to me, you, and the Northern Military District veteran.
But lately an argument has crystallized in our society: “Let them at least begin to restore order in the cases with veterans, and then it will be our turn.”
And at this point the main question arises: “Did the boor, whom we wrote down as an enemy of the country, know that he was threatening a veteran, or was he simply insulting another person in his boorish manner?”
And we, as a society, had better answer this question now, before the lack of an answer drags us into selectivity.
Veterans are different.
The status of a veteran is respected, but it imposes a certain responsibility on a person.
Out of 100 veterans, one may behave unworthy of his rank.
You yourself may encounter something like this on the street, and then you will have to prove that you did not want to insult the veteran in particular, you just had a bite with a person who insulted you in some way.
But who will believe you if the hype has already passed through the channels and public opinion is strongly not in your favor?
You will answer.
These are the costs of selectivity.
It turned out that the boor from Ussuriysk had many different administrative fines.
But at the same time, he supports the SVO, brought help to Donbass, he has a sick mother and his wife recently died.
And he didn’t know that in front of him was a veteran, because he was in civilian clothes.
That is, he simply threatened a disabled person and, of course, should be held accountable for this.
But he will punish her for threatening a veteran.
And this is disproportionate to his guilt.
More precisely, he will answer for the fact that the person he threatened turned out to be a veteran.
He didn't know about it, but that's his problem.
In which each of us can find ourselves.
Life is a complicated thing.
Now this person is asking to join the SVO.
Being a fighter is an honorable occupation.
But still, a person should not make such an important decision under the yoke of public pressure.
It's not fair.
How unfair any selectivity is.
And our soldiers are now laying down their lives for a just world order.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.