Participant in the shooting in Vladikavkaz has been placed under arrest.

The Soviet District Court of Vladikavkaz has arrested David Korolev-Gagloev for two months in connection with the shooting of two restaurant visitors, including Chechen MMA fighter Ibrahim Islamov, known as Nikarho.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on October 20, North Ossetia parliament member Soslan Didarov and fighter Maxim Divnich, commenting on the fight involving Nikarho, stated that, according to Caucasian customs, guests in North Ossetia should respect local traditions. Residents of the North Caucasus republics divided in their assessment of the shooting during the conflict. National identity should not influence the investigation of the events in Vladikavkaz, during which Chechen MMA fighter Nikarho was injured, users of social media pointed out, calling for an investigation of the incident without bias and interference from authorities.

The Soviet District Court of Vladikavkaz has chosen a measure of restraint in the form of detention for two months for David Korolev-Gagloev, who shot at two restaurant visitors, reported today by the Telegram channel "KrylyaTV Ossetia".

As of 18:40 Moscow time, there is no information on the website of the Soviet District Court of Vladikavkaz regarding a hearing on the selection of a measure of restraint for a person with such details.

The court's press service had also not reported by this time about the arrest of the suspect.

Recall that in a widely circulated social media video of the fight in Vladikavkaz, the moment of the shooting is shown. A man in dark clothing approaches the participants of the conflict lying on the ground and begins to back away, while a man in a light shirt near a tree points an object resembling a gun at him. At the moment of the shot, the retreating man is turned away from the shooter or at an angle, after which he falls to the ground.

This recording sparked debates on social media about permissible limits of self-defense. Some users believed that the shooter was defending himself and other participants in the fight from an attack by a professional fighter. Others distinguished between the use of weapons during an attack and shooting at a person who was already retreating, questioning the justification for the second shot.

Opponents of the shooter pointed out that shooting an unarmed and retreating person in the back cannot be justified by self-defense, while his supporters insisted that he found himself in a dangerous situation and was trying to protect himself and others.