Demand is the procedure for making one or another decision at the “gangway” (i.e. at a meeting of criminals) in relation to the offender. It can be directed both at the “bastard” (one who deliberately goes against the law of thieves), who, as a rule, is “shot down” by a “torpedo” (prison executioner), and at the address of a simple offender, equal or unequal in “suit” ( a certain caste in the underworld).
If the matter concerns a thief in law, then the gang consists of thieves in law. If the matter does not involve a thief, then the presence of a steward or a very authoritative prisoner is sufficient. As a rule, the demand varies, as does the verdict of the people meeting on it. The last point is called "get". According to the law of thieves, it is possible to obtain money from a person who has committed this or that act only after a decision has been made by the gang.
Demand for ratting
In the criminal world, a rat is a prisoner who takes someone else's property without permission. As a rule, we often talk about food, tea, cigarettes, drugs and money. This type of demand varies depending on what is stolen. If this is public money, then the rat will face the most severe sentence that only exists in places of imprisonment. If it is someone else’s ration of bread, then the offender is usually forced to eat a huge amount of food. The thieves' law is harsh on thieves in law when it comes to money. The once famous Dagestani thief Magomedkhan Aliyev (Maga Primer) was “stopped” by another influential Dagestani - Alik Asevov (Makhachkala) because the thieves in law were missing 200 Soviet rubles from Aliyev’s common fund. Thief in law Kolyma lent money from the common fund to businessmen who promised to return high interest rates. Businessmen went broke. Kolyma gave the order to kill both of them because they did not pay the promised amount. The newly minted businessmen turned to the police. Extortion was proven, and the thief in law went to the zone. Upon arrival at the zone, the thieves had already received a small letter, signed by more than 20 thieves in law, about the decoronation of Kolyma, and a 2-month period for returning the money to the common fund, which he gave to businessmen. But the former thief in law could not return the money. The crowned thief in law of the still-union Kolyma died in the production facility of the colony when a 2-ton press flattened his entire body, disfiguring him beyond recognition.
Everything new is well forgotten old
Oldfags still have vivid memories of the times when representatives of various subcultures walked the streets in their traditional attire. The Goths wore black clothes and whitened their facial skin. In addition to this, they inked their eyes with their mother’s cosmetic pencil and grew long hair (they were also usually dyed black).
In contrast, emo looked much brighter, but at the same time aroused even greater interest among various representatives of street youth. Hot pink pieces were mixed with black ones for a pretty cute ensemble. Long bangs of the same poisonous fuchsia color, a backpack and a mandatory attribute - a bunch of badges on clothes. The makeup was gloomy and hinted at the frailty of life.
Perhaps the most prominent representatives of the last millennium were Gopniks. Their style of clothing could not be confused with anything else. A tracksuit, a cap and sneakers - you’ll meet someone like this on the street on a dark evening and you’ll immediately understand the futility of trying to come to an agreement peacefully. They didn’t care at all what it was like to ask random passers-by for a cigarette, change, or a phone. And of course, it was these people who began to demand that others explain their clothes. No one understood how to do this to avoid a fight. They clung to everyone who was weaker than them, and demanded that the poor Goths and Emos expose themselves right on the street. They cut their hair, tore things and tore off their badges. It seemed that this time had already gone forever and now there was nothing to be afraid of, because we live in a civilized society. Not so.
Demand for suit
This type of demand is for claiming to be someone other than who you really are. For example, a man in life (one who, in places of deprivation of liberty, tries to quietly serve his sentence, working, living according to the principle “my house is on the edge”), called himself a tramp (a professional criminal, abiding by the laws of thieves, negatively disposed towards law enforcement agencies) or Nekrasovsky a peasant (a category of prisoners who are always living, as if to gain something for themselves and find a warmer place) - a peasant in life. The most severe punishment awaited the one who appropriated the title of thief in law. The history of the criminal world knows the example of the “impostor” Leonid Svinukhov (Lenchik Shaky-Bashka). This man was repeatedly declared a thief in law in the colonies. In 1992, Svinukhov “showed up” in one of the ULITU zones of Vyatspetsles, and the thieves in law Vasya Buzulutsky, Dekhan and Volodya Ryazansky, who were serving there, beat him, subsequently forcing him to ask the administration for a transfer to another colony. There he sat quietly until his release, trying not to draw attention to his person.
Fashionable, expensive, reasonable
The concept of “casual” comes from Britain. In the same seventies, football fans often started mass fights, threw smoke bombs during matches and behaved aggressively. The police quickly learned to recognize such individuals and catch them while approaching the stadium. In order to pass through security without arousing suspicion from the police, fans began wearing expensive designer items. A whole subculture called “casual” has emerged.
Ask like a scoundrel, a bastard
This demand is for a misdemeanor that grossly violates the laws of thieves. The culprit pays with his head or health. They don’t beat the reptile with their hands, only with a stick or feet; they hit them on any part of the body. However, an innocent person can be declared a bastard through ingrigg. Such a case happened with the legendary thief in law Sergei Boytsov. In August 1988, the Fighter decided to go to the thief in law Vitka Orek, who was sitting in IK-10, with the intention of inviting another thief in law, Kolya Chakhotka, there to resolve his issue (i.e., to become a thief in law). A month later, the Fighter returned and said that Orek’s actions, despite the latter’s friendship with Vasya Brilliant, contradict the Thieves’ foundations; however, to resolve the situation, he wrote a letter to the mass of thieves in law who were in the Tulun special prison. A few months later, a response came from the thieves in law that “Nut is not a Thief, but a bitch.” The Fighter read this answer out loud. Soon, rumors reached Orek in IK-10 that the Fighter allegedly did not read, but stated that Orek was not a Thief. A tramp nicknamed Sharshavy came to Boytsov from Orek, with a verbal instruction to the “brothers” of the camp: “Take the common fund from Boytsov and get it from him like a reptile.” The fighter asked if there was a “little thing” from Orek confirming Sharshavoy’s words. But since there was no little thing, the Fighter said, addressing everyone: “Brothers, I, of course, can’t allow myself to get paid without a little thing from the Thief, but we all know Sharshavy as a decent prisoner and I have no reason to doubt his words. Therefore, if the Thief told you to do this to me, then you should not hesitate, because the words of the Thieves cannot be ignored. Of all those present here, I can only allow Kyli to get from me, since I respect him especially.” Then the Fighter called the authoritative tramp Kylya into an empty room, where they were alone for about ten minutes. “When they left the room, I saw tears in Kylya’s eyes and realized that the Fighter convinced Kylya to hit him on the cheek. Then for some time Boyots and I and Ivanenok and Foma were declared scoundrels, until the little one came from Kolya Consumption, saying that Orek is a bitch,” recalled Leonid Semikolenov.
rasper
The authorship is not mine, but on topic) I can’t give you a link, because I have this lying around on my soapbox:
>> In the city of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, almost everyone lives by the rules. >> Could you write how it is explained for honor, for personal, for loved ones, >> for black and white, etc. >> I would be very grateful. WITH.
It’s impossible to cover everything at once, so let’s consider the “free” option and delve into the general principles of combat on foreign territory. These are at the same time the basic principles of communication in a cell - the main thing is to understand their essence. So:
How to behave when meeting with “gopniks”?
- Rabbits and boas: Their weapon is our fear.
- Who are Gopniks?
- How to answer questions like: “Hey, come here!”
- We're not suckers
- Hitting the market
- Freezing. (May be skipped)
- The best defense is attack.
- Never make excuses
- Let's break the situation.
- Hold position
- Don't bend
- A draw on a foreign field is a victory.
- Don't get carried away with winning
- Let's smile
- Even…
- Errors
- Verification passed
- The last and most important rule
Our fear is because we do not know the rules by which “that” world operates. But we certainly respect them. Because these are the rules of the strong - concepts. We respect the world of the strong, the world of thieves and authorities. But direct access there is closed; the full set of concepts is not accessible to a mere mortal. We obviously accept them, but we do not know their principles and norms. This is where the dog is buried. We accept the rules of the game without knowing them. Naturally, a more or less “blamed” freak, even with a measly income, knowing a couple of “tricks”, will beat you in no time. Because you agreed to play by his rules. And a person who voluntarily agreed to play by rules that he does not know is called a sucker.
The word, as it should be understood, comes from the famous “gop-stop” - which in Fen means robbery or robbery, i.e. open possession of material assets. Robbery - with weapons, robbery - without.
Gopniks are not exactly criminals. They walk a fine line - at first they “run into” the victim with a “bazaar”, probe him, cause fear and confusion. Moreover, this is done without a direct threat of violence - from the outside it will seem that the gopnik is all politeness, and you, on the contrary, are a nervous, unbalanced, or even completely aggressive type. As a result of such a hit, the victim, as a rule, gives up his property himself - usually small money, mobile phones, watches. Although this is not the main thing for a gopnik - he may not take anything from you. It is important for him to feel his superiority. Make you afraid of him.
Everything is often on the verge of a “joke”, a conversation “in terms of concepts”, so then during a showdown you can always say - he gave it to me himself. This is often confirmed by the victim herself:
- Well, yes, I gave it to them myself... - Why? - I don’t know... - Did they threaten you? They said that they would beat you and take you away? - No, they didn’t threaten. Well there... well, they said who he is in life... - Then why did you give it to them? - Don't know…
If you are in the police, then the officer begins to get nervous, or even go berserk, and, in the end, tries to get rid of you. There are no legal grounds. If there is a showdown among the lads, then you get the status of a sucker. And getting it from a sucker is a sacred thing for a gopnik. He's a kid, you're a sucker. Conceptually, he is right. The conversation is over.
This is a direct invitation to war - i.e. the war is already underway. Psychological. The main thing is not to be afraid and not to rush to approach, even if you are clearly inferior in strength. Although you shouldn’t openly demonstrate your coolness. Whoever starts must justify his actions. Therefore, if you are only being probed in this way, then you need to take the “conversation” in a different direction.
So, depending on the situation, you stop or turn around, in a word, express some interest. Don't come.
- Hey, come here, I said!
Answers like “come here yourself” are not suitable, as you understand, unless you are a boxing champion. You're standing.
They come up to you. Scary.
- Don’t you hear? (frostbitten, swollen...)
Don't pay attention, freeze, like, further:
- Can I help you?
If your “conversation” did not begin with a direct provocation like the one described above, then usually the gopnik will extend his hand to you when he meets and greet you like a kid. This obliges you to be moderately polite and answer the first questions. Which is what he is trying to achieve. This is one of the main tricks of a gopnik - after such a gesture of “good will,” he gets the right to “fairly” be indignant that you, for example, do not want to communicate with him. Plus, he immediately creates an alibi for himself - “I approached him like a boy, they shook him with his claws. Was it like that!?” - “Well, yes...” - “And people over there saw it. And then he started to show off for me...” 1:0 in favor of the gop.
We break it off at the very beginning. It is very difficult to withstand - the look and the hand extended to you. The stencils of politeness are driven deep into us. The hand reaches out on its own. Let's hold on. Let's look it in the face. We smile.
- Who are you?
I know that this is difficult, especially if your opponent is clearly stronger than you or there is a crowd behind him. But you HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS. A good guy will not shake hands with the first person he meets without first knowing who is in front of him. In prison they don’t shake hands at all, for example - and prison rules are sacred to a Gopnik. And you don't have to press the first paw you see. “Or maybe you’re not a kid at all - who knows,” you hint. But you are hinting that he has no right to accuse you of anything. And besides, suspicions creep in that you know the rules of the game.
Your main task is to remain within the framework of HIS rules, to break off the gopnik using his own methods - you should not appeal to universal morality and quote the Constitution. This is the trump card of the gopnik, that he imposes his rules on you and forces you to play by them on his field. So that's what we do - we play the proposed game with a serious look.
If they obviously didn’t come to beat you, then what follows is part two – “a hit at the market.” In any case, if you are not yet lying on the asphalt and people are talking to you, then everything is in order. In reality, if they are not afraid of you, then at least they are afraid of you.
-...who are you, where are you from? -...let me see the phone number. -…have money? -...on what occasion do we drink? -...who are you in life?
So. You MUST smile and say:
- I do not know you.
Go (stand) further.
If this doesn’t work (most likely it doesn’t) and the questions continue and the intonation intensifies, then you need to go on the offensive:
The universal answer is that it always works:
- For what purpose are you interested?
It is important to understand and remember the main thing - in order to attack you, you need a reason. Aggression without a reason is lawlessness. They are waiting for a reason from you. As long as you don't give it, you're safe.
Under no circumstances make the slightest concession - do not answer anything. NOT ONE QUESTION, even a completely innocent one. As soon as you answer something, even the most neutral, but to the essence of the question, and want to interrupt the conversation later, the aggressor has the “moral right” to accuse you of disrespect for himself, i.e. get this very right to take tough action. You “supported” the conversation, and then refuse to continue. Not pretty.
Of course, you won't get a direct answer to your question. Lots of options for further development:
- What, a bastard with the boys? -Are you being rude? - You do not respect me? - I didn't understand…
In all cases, you need to “stupidly” continue your topic. Under no circumstances, again (see above), answer questions - “I respect you, but...”, “I’m not being rude, but...”. Your “but” will be immediately regarded as weakness. If the following phrase follows: “Why are you making excuses? Do you feel something behind you?” or something similar, then you will have nothing to answer it with. This is 100% a trick - it doesn’t matter what you answer or just remain silent, everything will be turned as an attempt to either make excuses or be rude.
“I’m not making excuses,” look at yourself from the outside, you understand that it just sounds stupid. But speak up nonetheless. - Justify it. - Why should I justify? - Because you are making excuses. - Yes, I’m not making excuses! - What are you doing now? - I... well... fuck you! I do not want to talk to you. - Oh, you’re also a rude... That’s it. Then either escape, beating, or humiliation with confiscation of material assets.
- What, it’s a waste of time to splurge with normal(!) boys? is a likely response to your counterattack.
Remember - no “no”, “no”, and especially “but”.
-You didn't answer my question.
It doesn't hurt to keep smiling.
- And you are on mine. — Are you going to run into chaos? -Are you accusing me of something? - Just answer my question. Do I have the right to ask?
Please note - just “inquire”. “Ask” has a double meaning on a hairdryer - they ask someone for something that will immediately be regarded as an assault - “I have the right to ask.” - "What? Ask me? For what? Justify." That's it, it's a dead end again, you're in a bag.
— I’m interested for myself.
“I’m interested for myself” is a stock phrase-answer to the question “for what purpose are you interested?” Everything is fine. As soon as you heard something like that, the enemy wavered - you forced the “right guy” to justify himself. Now the main thing is not to go too far.
- I do not know you.
Under no circumstances should you continue this phrase: “and I’m not going to talk to you,” “why should I answer you,” “it’s none of your business.” Only stupidly neutral phrases. As long as you haven't given a formal casus belli, you're in a better position.
We stop smiling and show with all our appearance that the conversation is over.
The cycle can be repeated in different variations. You simply hold on to your position, the meaning of which is that WHO STARTED THE CONVERSATION SHOULD JUSTIFY THE REASON.
In fact, there is ONE reason, and you must remember it - TO PROVOKE YOU AND GET THE MORAL RIGHT to attack, insult, humiliate, hit, take away. But, naturally, the “right guy” will never voice it, because then he himself admits to being a lawless person. And this is no longer common sense - the right guys don’t cause chaos. Those. you are asking a question that he cannot answer, but, according to his own rules, he is obliged to. In chess, this is called a “fork” - we attack two pieces with one piece. The only choice the opponent has is which piece to lose. The point is that it is impossible to admit that the purpose of the tackle was to run him over, as you understand. Gopnik must comply with the laws of thieves' diplomacy and remain within the limits of the law. To remain silent or to leave essentially means to tacitly admit that everything was exactly as it was. And this means lowering yourself in the eyes of your comrades and your own.
This is your clear victory. But no one wants to be defeated, even though such a turn of events is quite likely. Admitting defeat, of course, can be compensated by insults or promises to “see you again” - this is the last attempt to provoke you. We just remain silent.
Do not comply with minor requests under any circumstances - by any standards, you can demand to state the reason first or qualify this as a direct attack. What you should say directly.
-Give me a glass. -...
We are silent, we smile. We are waiting for accusations...
- Are you screwed, or what?
... and go on a counterattack.
— Checking for the Sucker suit? (or: “Do you want to run into me?”) “I’m asking you like a normal guy.”
You earned a point, it pays off. And in front of everyone he calls you a “normal kid.” One more point.
- Ahh. I'm sorry, i do not understand. On the.
If you don’t want to be defeated, then the gopu has only one thing left -
1. or start beating you, which puts him in the category of offenders from the point of view of the law or into the category of lawless people from the point of view of concepts. He doesn’t need this, because the gop just wants to rise at the expense of your humiliation.
2. or “admit” that the goal was different - to get to know each other, communicate, spend time together. That is, to avoid defeat. That's what was required. A draw on a foreign field suits us quite well.
“Fork” - he already chooses only between which option of defeat to accept. Most likely he is not a fool. - Don't know me? Well, let's get acquainted.
You can shake paws.
If you feel a fracture, then you may well give him the opportunity to rehabilitate himself in your eyes and the eyes of the boys. This is what needs to be done - otherwise the feeling of defeat will most likely lead to a new wave of aggression, which cannot be stopped by the market.
After an acquaintance, however, cycles of the same answers and questions may again follow, and the acquaintance itself was only a trick - you just need to be vigilant and in no case relax. No matter how many such cycles there are, your task is the same - not to provide a reason. I repeat - this means: Don’t make excuses. Don't answer questions. Do not comply with requests Do not break into “high” tones - remain polite and calm. Continue to demand an answer to your question. Ask “uncomfortable” questions.
Notice - we smile. It is important. This confuses and makes the attacker nervous. This makes him wary and act cautiously - “why is he crushing his face? Maybe he knows what? And he makes himself look like a fool..."
If you meet complete scumbags, then you won’t have to talk for long. But in reality, such instances are extremely rare - this is a mental pathology. Almost every person has a taboo against unjustified aggression. Those. You always need a reason, no matter how funny or far-fetched. Concepts speak about the same thing.
Even if you suffer, then, firstly, maintain your dignity, respect in the face of your friends and yourself. And even enemies, which means a lot in the future. And, secondly, both the law and concepts are on your side, and you may well demand satisfaction by gaining strength, for example, in the form of support from friends. You are no longer a loser, but a warrior who has just lost a battle, but not the entire war.
There are two possible strategic mistakes here: - fear will take over and you will give up, starting to mutter something inarticulate and willingly give away everything that is “asked” of you. - you will feel like you are on a horse and decide to build on your success by exceeding the permissible dose of assault - most likely, in this case you will be beaten.
If you don’t make mistakes, and your “opponent” doesn’t leave the battlefield himself, then you may well find new friends, or even better kents.
And if a turning point has already occurred, then maybe you shouldn’t give up on further developments - it’s quite likely that you will be offered to drink beer together and have some fun.
It’s not for nothing that this person approached you. Nothing happens by chance in the world.
This often happens - if you pass the “toddler” test, you become not only an equal, but also a respected equal. In crowds of gopniks there are usually one or two “real” boys, the rest are sticky. The leader always knows this and, in general, he is not interested in them - they are his own pathetic copies.
Therefore, quite honestly and sincerely, they may want you as a friend.
The choice is yours. If not, then no. They patted each other on the shoulder, and even hugged each other like brothers. The market is over, it's over.
Even if you're scared, remember these simple rules and don't deviate from them. Because the last and most important rule is not to turn around. Either don’t start at all, or, once you start, don’t give up.
Remember Russian fairy tales - don’t turn around. Whoever turns back loses.
Of course, this is just an outline; your creativity will always be needed. Fear will make its own adjustments, but, nevertheless, it is possible to REMEMBER.
Good luck!
Ask like a decent person, according to concepts
Demand from your old sidekick (close one), who blocked a joint (committed an offense that goes against the prison system), or from a person of the same color. Under such circumstances, the gathering provides the victim with carte blanche, which, as a rule, ends with a slap in the face or verbal reprimand of the offender. An example is the situation with the former Armenian thief in law Vardan Asatryan (Bje). Bje was involved in the abduction of children from wealthy Armenian families, but outwardly tried to present the matter as if his role was limited only to mediation in the transfer of the ransom. When one of the parents of the kidnapped child gave Asatryan part of the amount and turned to Aslan Usoyan (Ded Hasan) for help, the latter called Bje to him and asked if he had anything to do with the kidnappings. Bje denied any involvement. Then Usoyan asked if he gave money to the kidnappers. He nodded affirmatively. After that, Hasan said that if Bje is not involved, let him name the kidnappers. Bje said that he did not know to whom he transferred the money, to which Usoyan asked how he transferred it if he did not know to whom. Bje began to lie that he gave the money through the window to the people in the car that pulled up. Grandfather Hassan reminded him that he was not being interrogated by the police, but was talking with thieves in law. Then Bje named the name of his accomplice, Hakob Meliksetyan, nicknamed Kyazh, to whom he allegedly transferred the money. By a fateful coincidence, Kyazh was in the next room, and when he was invited, he said that he had not received any money from Bje. After that, Hassan slapped Bje and said that he was not a thief/
Misleading first impression
Officials are football fans. Sounds harmless, doesn't it? Sports, football, health and so on. In fact, these are extremely dangerous people. They are divided into the right (fascists, anarchists and simply aggressive people) and the left (anti-fascists). The war between the two halves of one subculture is constant, so they usually travel in large groups. If you are not in the know, you are unlikely to distinguish them from each other. They wear camouflage, roll up their jeans, and wear T-shirts with strange slogans.
To understand how to explain your clothes if you are still approached by inappropriate teenagers, you need to know which brands of clothing are at risk. First of all, these are stones - wardrobe items produced by the cult company Stone Island. Tommy Hilfiger and Fred Perry T-shirts, NAPAPIJRI military jackets and parkas, camouflage-type items. Of particular interest to office workers are T-shirts with the inscription “There are no innocents” and the clothes of the Russian fashion designer Gosha Rubchinsky, well-known in narrow circles. What to do if they ask you to explain your clothes? Try to calmly convey to them the information that you simply like the clothes of these brands and you have no idea what significance they have for other people. Perhaps you will be lucky and the inadequate ones will leave you alone.
What else you need to know about office workers
If you are planning to take a walk around the area in the evening and see a large crowd of teenagers, run away. From time to time, these unbalanced schoolchildren organize “clogs” or “vines.” These are massacres that are filmed on a phone or camera and then posted on the Internet. Young people don’t need extra witnesses at such events, so it’s better not to go near such places. And don’t be surprised when you see girls among the crowd of teenagers - they are also actively joining this dubious subculture.
Russia, poor Russia...
Russian “casuals” know very well that only a small number of teenagers can afford to wear expensive branded items. Often things are ordered from websites on the Internet or from the Chinese, who masterfully churn out fakes. In slang, such clothing is called “pal”. Casuals gather in groups and organize a real “palpatrol”. They can easily force you to remove the item and check its authenticity. And they know how to distinguish a real brand from a fake. The minimum that can happen is that this item will be torn in front of your eyes or burned. At most, they will beat you up. How to respond to “explain about your clothes” has already been described, but in this case you need to add that you have no relationship with subcultures and do not understand the authenticity of things. Well, if you are wearing really branded items, you can earn respect from these curious schoolchildren. It's a dubious pleasure, but at least your face will remain intact.
