Lawyers compared the legal consequences of destroying UAVs by air defense forces and civilians.

Military personnel, shooting down drones, are performing a task to defend the state. A civilian with a weapon, however, acts solely at their own risk, lawyers said, commenting on court decisions regarding a pensioner from the Volgograd region who shot at a UAV. The consequences also differ: in the case of a drone being shot down by the military, compensation is paid by the state, while in the case of shooting by an ordinary citizen, all consequences and responsibility fall on them.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", the court imposed a fine of 40,000 rubles on pensioner Nikolai Mukhin from the village of Yelany for attempting to independently shoot down a Ukrainian drone flying at night past the Yelansky district. His hunting rifle was also confiscated. The man himself does not consider himself guilty and calls the punishment unfair. After this, the Volgograd Regional Court ruled to terminate the proceedings in the case and return the rifle to the pensioner.

The status of military personnel removes the risk of consequences for shooting down a UAV

The actions of air defense units when hitting drones and attempts by civilians to independently shoot down drones with personal weapons have fundamentally different legal statuses and consequences. In the case of a UAV being shot down by a standard crew, the personal responsibility of military personnel is practically excluded, while civilians act at their own risk, and the precedent of canceling the fine for Volgograd pensioner Nikolai Mukhin does not grant the right to shoot at aerial targets everywhere, lawyer Evgeny Smirnov told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

"The legal status of a private citizen and a mobile fire group (MFG) or air defense unit when intercepting a drone is fundamentally different. Military personnel act while performing a combat task to defend the state. A civilian with a weapon, however, acts solely at their own risk, relying on the institutions of extreme necessity or necessary defense," noted Evgeny Smirnov.

According to him, military personnel of air defense crews or MFG do not bear responsibility for the fall of a downed UAV and subsequent damage if they acted within the framework of combat regulations and orders.

"Orders and instructions require the crew to destroy the target. The fact that the downed drone or its debris fell into a residential area is considered a result of fulfilling a combat duty, not a crime. Personal criminal responsibility of a serviceman or commander under articles on negligence or violation of weapon handling rules can only arise in the case of direct violation of an order or unlawful opening fire on a civilian object. A commander who gave a justified order to destroy an identified target is not responsible for collateral damage on the ground," emphasized the lawyer.

Smirnov pointed out that a civilian shooting at a UAV assumes full criminal, administrative, and civil liability.

"The termination of the case against pensioner Nikolai Mukhin in the cassation court due to extreme necessity only means that the court recognized the harm he caused as less than the danger prevented. However, this decision does not grant citizens the right to shoot at drones everywhere - there is no case law in Russia. If a person was harmed by Mukhin's shot or the downed drone set fire to a neighbor's house, his actions would be classified as causing harm through negligence," he explained.

The procedure for compensating damages to affected citizens also differs, the expert added.

"In the case of actions by air defense or MFG, the state assumes compensation for damage and payments for damaged property under laws protecting the population during emergencies. If, however, the damage was caused by the actions of a private individual, the obligation to compensate falls on that citizen. Only if the court officially recognizes that the person acted in a state of extreme necessity can they be exempted from payments, and the obligation to compensate transferred to the state," summarized Evgeny Smirnov.

Shooting by civilians at UAVs is considered unauthorized actions with weapons

The responsibility of a military and a civilian when shooting down a drone is fundamentally different in terms of the law of martial law and defense legislation, commented military lawyer Artem Mugunyants to "Caucasian Knot".

Civilians attempting to shoot at UAVs are committing unauthorized actions with weapons, having no legal authority to do so.

"Military personnel of air defense and mobile fire groups perform a combat task within the framework of protecting airspace, their actions are regulated by statutes, combat orders, and the laws "On Military Service" and "On Defense." Civilians attempting to shoot at UAVs are committing unauthorized actions with weapons, having no legal authority to do so," stated Artem Mugunyants.

According to him, the personal responsibility of a serviceman for the fall of a downed UAV and damage on the ground is practically excluded, except in rare cases of violations.

"A downed drone or its fragments are an inevitable secondary striking effect of the enemy when repelling an attack. The air defense crew was fulfilling a direct duty to eliminate an aerial target. To bring a soldier or commander to criminal responsibility under articles on negligence or violation of weapon handling rules, it must be proven that there was a clear criminal intent or gross failure to follow the order of fire. For example, if fire was directed at a mistakenly identified civilian target with a known absence of threat. In other situations, the commander and subordinates are fully protected by the status of executing a combat order," the expert indicated.

This decision does not mean that citizens are allowed to shoot at any flying objects.

A different situation arises when civilians shoot from personal hunting or traumatic weapons, the lawyer emphasized.

"A citizen with a gun does not possess the means to distinguish "friend or foe" and lacks technical qualifications. The case of Volgograd pensioner Nikolai Mukhin, acquitted by the court under Article 2.7 of the Administrative Offenses Code due to extreme necessity, is an exceptional judicial episode. This decision does not mean that citizens are allowed to shoot at any flying objects. If in a similar situation a drone shot down by a civilian falls on a residential building, causes detonation, or the shot injures a person, the shooter faces criminal prosecution for causing death or harm through negligence, as well as for destroying someone else's property," Mugunyants expressed.

The military lawyer also pointed out the difference in mechanisms for compensating victims.

"If the fall of a UAV and destruction occurred as a result of the combat work of air defense, the state fully compensates the damage from the reserve fund under regional and federal emergency assistance programs. If, however, the destruction or injuries to people resulted from the actions of a private individual, the damage is recovered personally from the shooting civilian. Proving in court the extreme necessity to shift payments to the state in the case of deaths caused by the actions of a private shooter will be practically impossible," concluded Artem Mugunyants.