On April 4, a video of shooting incident in the Russian city of Kazan. The video was reportedly filmed on March 1 during some wedding celebrations.
Mariya Kiyamutdinova, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kazan, stressed that that authorities have carried out a preliminary investigation and identified persons involved. However, she stressed, no criminal case has been opened because the shoorter used “an wind gun [air gun] and blank cartridge”. This statement remains unclear.
The video circulating online clearly shows that the man was using a semi-automatic firearm, intert or regular. The weapon can be either air [wind] or inert with blank ammunition.
Even if the filmed person used blank rounds, in the framework of the Russian legal practice such situations are being treated under Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – “hooliganism” [up to 5 years in prison]. Just recently, Article 213 was used in the city of Surgut in the framework of the case opened over a shooting incident with blank rounds during a weeding.
The person involved in the March 1 incident was shooting towards the Kazan Kremlin, the chief historic citadel of the Republic of Tatarstan. The video also allows to see that the person was aiming his weapon at some administrative building there. The residency of the head of Tatarstan is located in the Kazan Kremlin.
The video also allows to hear reactions of some people behind the cadre. It’s highly possible that these are friends of the shooter. It’s highly possible that the shooter was demonstrating his flagrant disregard towrads official bodies to his friends. Taking into account these factors, the official reaction of the authorities over this incident, especially comments regarding “blank rounds” and “an air rifle”, set people wondering.
There is also a version that the March 1 incident was a pre-planned provocation. Some people “asked” the shooter to fire towards the Kazan Kremlin. It is visible that the person was holding the weapon and shooting clumsily. Most likely, the gun was not belonging to him.
In this case, the possible goal of the provocation was to publicly discredit regional or (and) federal authorities and trigger a massive public outcry amid the conflcit between the regional elites and the federal authorities. The provocative statement by the local spokesperson for the Ministry of Internal Affairs could be viewed as a signal in the favor of this version. We think that the this version is less likely that the main one. Apparently, we saw an ordrinary hooliganism and an improper execution of duties by local Police.