Social media users demanded an impartial investigation into the conflict involving Nikarkho.

National affiliation should not influence the investigation of events in Vladikavkaz, during which Chechen MMA fighter Nikarkho was injured, users of social media indicated, calling for an unbiased investigation without government interference.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on October 20, North Ossetia parliament member Soslan Didarov and fighter Maxim Divnich, commenting on the fight involving Nikarkho, stated that, according to Caucasian customs, guests in North Ossetia should observe local traditions. Residents of the North Caucasus republics were divided in their assessment of the shooting during the conflict.

A publication on the "Caucasian Knot" Instagram page* about the limits of hospitality in connection with the shooting in North Ossetia, in which MMA fighter of Chechen origin Nikarkho was injured, had garnered 76 likes and 234 comments by 23:45 MSK on October 21.

The limits of self-defense interested commentators

"Hospitality or not. You try to help in a situation, and a fighter who just broke someone else's jaw attacks you. What will anyone do?" - believes kirill_kirpi.

"But there was no need to shoot, he could have just said it with words. He provoked him," - argues abdulkerim_211.

Shooting in the back - is that protection?

"Trauma is self-defense, a professional fighter against an ordinary person? Again, this is self-defense and nothing more," - asserts asapfk.

"Shooting in the back - is that protection?" - asks momentohans.

Behavior of conflict participants in a public place

Some commentators believe that the conflict is primarily related to adherence to social norms. These messages focus on how a person should behave outside their own home, regardless of fame and status.

"A guest should behave respectfully. Otherwise, it’s unacceptable," - writes _gggass.

"An attempt at self-justification for not knowing how to behave in society, stepping outside one's own home," - believes soslan__kulov.

"A person should know how to behave, wherever they are," - notes kob111111a.

"One country, but the residents are guests. This can be said to anyone from the neighboring village. A passport with an eagle - the whole federation is your home," - notes timerlanh.

"Your home is also in the Russian Federation, which partly makes it the property of the federation, if anything. However, in your home, you set the rules, and the guest should respect and honor them, right?" - argues ma_za_ir_.

Commentators debate whether a sports status limits the right to visit public establishments and how much an athlete should consider that young people look up to them.

"Athletes should stay at home, not < in restaurants!" - states kharitonovanatalia500.

"He sets an example for young athletes who take after him! Or am I wrong?" - she added.

"Can he not go to a restaurant just because he is an athlete?" - countered ozdo.l07.

Commentators demanded an investigation without bias

Some commentators believe that to assess what happened, it is necessary to restore the entire sequence of events, including what the participants said and did before the use of weapons.

"Are you sure he didn’t say anything to him before that?" - asks soslan__kulov.

Why has everyone, starting from the head of North Ossetia, deputies, and others, already begun to pressure the investigation, declaring the shooter’s innocence?

"Why has everyone taken a one-sided view here? The truth should be in everything. Let the law prevail!" - writes abubakar_as_siddik_1963.

"Why has everyone, starting from the head of North Ossetia, deputies, and others, already begun to pressure the investigation, declaring the shooter’s innocence and that we will not let our guy be wronged. Where is the law? Everyone should probably answer according to the law!" - he asks.

"The law is the same for everyone, let everything be done justly," - notes dst_tour.

"Everyone will answer according to the law," - asserts sio010305.

Some participants believe that what happened is related to violations of behavioral norms in the region, where one of the participants was a guest. Others warn against such conclusions until the investigation is completed and allow for the possibility that the motives for the conflict could have been different.

"He abused the hospitality of the Ossetians, the Ossetians were outraged, everything is fair here," - believes platypus.3037322.

"The investigation is not over, maybe the guest's nationality was not liked," - counters aliham226.

In the discussion, accusations arise that some participants defend a person solely because of their origin or regional affiliation. Other users, on the contrary, urge not to equate the actions of a specific person with the entire nation.

"They don’t care, right or wrong, they are just blindly supporting their own," - writes xhondotrz.

"There are many Chechens in Ossetia, and they behave decently, but this type earned what he sought," - notes milana05.0526.

In some threads, the discussion goes beyond assessing the incident and is accompanied by threats of so-called "retaliation." Other users question such statements and warn that threats may have legal consequences.

"Do you want to go to jail? There’s a law against threats, are you not aware?" - warned sobievaemma a user who threatened "retaliation.".

"I hope Kadyrov will take control of everyone who writes nasty things here, and will also take control of Nikarkho - he is disgracing all Chechens," - states kaifalek.

Recall that in a widely circulated video of the fight in Vladikavkaz, the moment of shooting is shown. A man in dark clothing rises next to the participants lying on the ground and begins to retreat, 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 with his back or sideways to the shooter, after which he falls to the ground.

This recording sparked debates on social media about acceptable 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 directly 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 as self-defense, while his supporters insisted that he found himself in a dangerous situation and was trying to protect himself and others.