U.S. demands release of American diplomat in Pakistan, says he has immunity

[Theoutsider]

Withdraw his immunity and make him take responsibility for his criminal actions. He has also damaged the reputation of the States. State armed and funded thug and murderer.

Are we reading the same news report? With your vast insight and recommendation for handling this incident, you must have requests for advice by several organizations.

Your read probably just reports that repeated the claims and explanation by the American(US) cowboy diplomat. Other news reports contain the following information:

An American "technical advisor" named Raymond Davis, is in police custody in Lahore, Pakistan after a bizarre incident that led to the death of three Pakistanis, one a pedestrian killed in a motor accident and two witness/bystanders killed by gunfire.

...

Davis, driving a rented car with phony license plates, loaded with automatic weapons and advanced Israeli built surveillance gear, was heading toward Mozang Chongi, a market district in Lahore that has been the scene of terror bombings in the past, bombings local residents suspect American contractors such as Davis have had a role in.

...

Witnesses claim that Davis struck and killed a cyclist, Ibadur Rahman, a local trader and attempted to flee the scene in heavy traffic. Two witnesses blocked his path and got off their bicycles and approached his car. One was said to be carrying a licensed weapon but this is disputed.

Davis, aided by a security team in a chase vehicle, gunned down the two civilians.

The US Consulate has claimed that the cyclist, Ibadur Rahman, was killed elsewhere by a Consulate vehicle with diplomatic plates. Witnesses and police dispute this claim.

veteranstoday.com/2011/01/27/gordon-duff-and-raja-mujtaba-diplomat-held-by-pakistan-said-to-be-black-ops-contractor/

black opps

[beechguy]

How can you be proud of a guy that just shot 2 people dead. If the roles had been reversed and in the US. you would be calling for the killers head.

In many places in the U.S. it would be called justifiable homicide, not murder, the guy would probably do a report at the police station and that would be the end of it.

However, since this is Pakistan, does anyone know the legal definition for murder?

In many places in the U.S. it would be called justifiable homicide, not murder, the guy would probably do a report at the police station and that would be the end of it.

I think that you find that the same laws do not apply in Pakistan and that this guy will be tried for murder. US laws do not apply all over the world you know.

You were the one that made a comparison to the U.S. I responded to that, if you don' like it perhaps you should be more careful about what you write.

I'm well aware that U.S. Law doesn't necessarily apply, that why I asked if anyone knew the legal definition according to Pakistani law, not your opinion of what constitutes murder.

[flying]

In many places in the U.S. it would be called justifiable homicide, not murder, the guy would probably do a report at the police station and that would be the end of it.

However, since this is Pakistan, does anyone know the legal definition for murder?

Is murder what the shooter has been charged with?

As for justifiable homicide in the US...I have heard the term used in accidental deaths like car accidents or in a case where an authorized law enforcer is threatened with bodily harm.

In the US use of deadly force with intent to kill may not be defined as justifiable unless there was clear intent that the ones he shot meant to kill him....AFAIK

In fact I do not believe you would be freed if you shot someone who was trying to rob you in the US unless again you could prove you were in a situation that could have cost you your life.

Not that I agree with those laws & would not hesitate to kill say an intruder found in my home at night...armed or unarmed I would not wait to find out.

This scenario in Pakistan will be interesting to watch & see how it all plays out. Though I do see in this latest report they are clear to mention these exact parameters...ie: the two on the bike were armed & he felt they meant to do him bodily harm. ( quite text book now in description )

Anyway I guess we will see where it goes.

The first report was rather sketchy about that & also why the 3rd person was shot while the US person was fleeing?

[bangkokrick]

Reply to Beechguy. You used too many quotes so cant reply to your post.

Seeing as the guy has already been charged with murder I think that makes the law in Pakistan very clear. It is not just my opinion.

I simply said that if the case was reversed that People in the US would be calling for the head of the accused. I was not making any comparison. Do you not think that it is a crime to shoot dead 2 people with an unauthorised firearm?

It's a good thing that he was arrested at the time or the mob would probably lynched him on the spot.

[Wallaby]

It is quite sad that in some parts of the US, when a number of people are killed, that all you would have to do was fill out a police report. Sounds more like Thailand.

[bangkokrick]

In many places in the U.S. it would be called justifiable homicide, not murder, the guy would probably do a report at the police station and that would be the end of it.

However, since this is Pakistan, does anyone know the legal definition for murder?

Is murder what the shooter has been charged with?

As for justifiable homicide in the US...I have heard the term used in accidental deaths like car accidents or in a case where an authorized law enforcer is threatened with bodily harm.

In the US use of deadly force with intent to kill may not be defined as justifiable unless there was clear intent that the ones he shot meant to kill him....AFAIK

In fact I do not believe you would be freed if you shot someone who was trying to rob you in the US unless again you could prove you were in a situation that could have cost you your life.

Not that I agree with those laws & would not hesitate to kill say an intruder found in my home at night...armed or unarmed I would not wait to find out.

This scenario in Pakistan will be interesting to watch & see how it all plays out. Though I do see in this latest report they are clear to mention these exact parameters...ie: the two on the bike were armed & he felt they meant to do him bodily harm. ( quite text book now in description )

Anyway I guess we will see where it goes.

The first report was rather sketchy about that & also why the 3rd person was shot while the US person was fleeing?

The third person was run down.

'Police said that the foreigner had used a radio to call colleagues for help immediately after the shooting - and that a second consular car turned up to rescue him.It is believed the third person killed was run over by the vehicle as it sped to his aid'.

[beechguy]

In many places in the U.S. it would be called justifiable homicide, not murder, the guy would probably do a report at the police station and that would be the end of it.

However, since this is Pakistan, does anyone know the legal definition for murder?

Is murder what the shooter has been charged with?

As for justifiable homicide in the US...I have heard the term used in accidental deaths like car accidents or in a case where an authorized law enforcer is threatened with bodily harm.

In the US use of deadly force with intent to kill may not be defined as justifiable unless there was clear intent that the ones he shot meant to kill him....AFAIK

In fact I do not believe you would be freed if you shot someone who was trying to rob you in the US unless again you could prove you were in a situation that could have cost you your life.

Not that I agree with those laws & would not hesitate to kill say an intruder found in my home at night...armed or unarmed I would not wait to find out.

This scenario in Pakistan will be interesting to watch & see how it all plays out. Though I do see in this latest report they are clear to mention these exact parameters...ie: the two on the bike were armed & he felt they meant to do him bodily harm. ( quite text book now in description )

Anyway I guess we will see where it goes.

The first report was rather sketchy about that & also why the 3rd person was shot while the US person was fleeing?

Off topic, but briefly my step father in the U.S. shot and killed one of three robbers at his store. Except for a police report, and temporary confiscation of his weapon, no further action was required of him. The other two went to jail for quite awhile.

Anyway, so my question is, does anyone know the actual definition under the Pakistani legal system, of murder or whatever else they may charge this guy with?

As for the third person getting killed, it was written in some reports that he was struck by another vehicle, not shot.

Edited January 30, 2011 by beechguy

[flying]

The third person was run down.

'Police said that the foreigner had used a radio to call colleagues for help immediately after the shooting - and that a second consular car turned up to rescue him.It is believed the third person killed was run over by the vehicle as it sped to his aid'.

Thanks BKrick...Yes I just now saw in another article that another car also came to his aid. Sounds more & more odd doesn't it?

[flying]

Anyway, so my question is, does anyone know the actual definition under the Pakistani legal system, of murder or whatever else they may charge this guy with?

Dont know but do see they (Pakistan) has given the death penalty for murder recently in a robbery case.

Of course in this case it is surly the robbers sentenced to death.

PAKISTAN: FIVE AWARDED DEATH SENTENCE FOR MURDER

January 11, 2011: in Pakistan, Shakargarh Additional District & Session Judge Nadeem Gulzar sentenced Nauman alias Mani, Atif, Abdul Rehman, Azhar and Mudassar to death and fined them Rs. one lakh each.

They allegedly murdered Maqsood Ahmed during a robbery on June 1, 2009, at Eissa Chowk in Shah Gharib Police precincts. (Sources: Pakistan Press International, 12/01/2011)

In the end I am guessing it will come down to witnesses & of course what the US offers for the release of this person. In any case if he is guilty & released due to what ever bargaining ensues it will not be well liked there is my guess.

[bangkokrick]

In many places in the U.S. it would be called justifiable homicide, not murder, the guy would probably do a report at the police station and that would be the end of it.

However, since this is Pakistan, does anyone know the legal definition for murder?

Is murder what the shooter has been charged with?

As for justifiable homicide in the US...I have heard the term used in accidental deaths like car accidents or in a case where an authorized law enforcer is threatened with bodily harm.

In the US use of deadly force with intent to kill may not be defined as justifiable unless there was clear intent that the ones he shot meant to kill him....AFAIK

In fact I do not believe you would be freed if you shot someone who was trying to rob you in the US unless again you could prove you were in a situation that could have cost you your life.

Not that I agree with those laws & would not hesitate to kill say an intruder found in my home at night...armed or unarmed I would not wait to find out.

This scenario in Pakistan will be interesting to watch & see how it all plays out. Though I do see in this latest report they are clear to mention these exact parameters...ie: the two on the bike were armed & he felt they meant to do him bodily harm. ( quite text book now in description )

Anyway I guess we will see where it goes.

The first report was rather sketchy about that & also why the 3rd person was shot while the US person was fleeing?

Off topic, but briefly my step father in the U.S. shot and killed one of three robbers at his store. Except for a police report, and temporary confiscation of his weapon, no further action was required of him. The other two went to jail for quite awhile.

Anyway, so my question is, does anyone know the actual definition under the Pakistani legal system, of murder or whatever else they may charge this guy with?

As for the third person getting killed, it was written in some reports that he was struck by another vehicle, not shot.

Here is a link for the definition, but it's a long read.

My link

[beechguy]

Reply to Beechguy. You used too many quotes so cant reply to your post.

Seeing as the guy has already been charged with murder I think that makes the law in Pakistan very clear. It is not just my opinion.

I simply said that if the case was reversed that People in the US would be calling for the head of the accused. I was not making any comparison. Do you not think that it is a crime to shoot dead 2 people with an unauthorised firearm?

It's a good thing that he was arrested at the time or the mob would probably lynched him on the spot.

Apologies for the quote situation, had problems trying to complete that post. As for there being a crime, yes he may be commiting a crime by using an unauhorized weapon, but I wouldn't necessarily consider the shooting, murder.

Far as being lynched on the spot, that's why personnel are instructed not to stay at the scene if they feel it is a threatening situation. They are insructed to seek help from the local police and to notify the embassy security personnel that they need assistance.

[Langsuan Man]

The chart you are citing is the chart used by the United States in dealing with foreign diplomats assigned to US locations, it has absolutely nothing to do with rights and privileges afforded by other countries to US Diplomats, located in their jurisdictions

That's not accurate. The DOS immunity procedures are based directly on the 1963 Vienna convention which the US implemented in, I believe, 1978. As such, it is based on International law. Of course, there may be minor variations on a country by country basis but is overall fundamentally correct.

And I guess the chart has a telephone number for you to call just for your education

[bangkokrick]

The third person was run down.

'Police said that the foreigner had used a radio to call colleagues for help immediately after the shooting - and that a second consular car turned up to rescue him.It is believed the third person killed was run over by the vehicle as it sped to his aid'.

Thanks BKrick...Yes I just now saw in another article that another car also came to his aid. Sounds more & more odd doesn't it?

Pleasure.

It's a very bizarre situation and it will be interesting to see how thing pan out at the end of the day.

[beechguy]

It is quite sad that in some parts of the US, when a number of people are killed, that all you would have to do was fill out a police report. Sounds more like Thailand.

What's sad? The police examine the information, pass on the information to the prosecuting authorities, and they make a determination if they think a crime has been commited. If not that's it, if so they take the case to court and let the legal system continue the process.

Edited January 30, 2011 by beechguy

[beechguy]

The third person was run down.

'Police said that the foreigner had used a radio to call colleagues for help immediately after the shooting - and that a second consular car turned up to rescue him.It is believed the third person killed was run over by the vehicle as it sped to his aid'.

Thanks BKrick...Yes I just now saw in another article that another car also came to his aid. Sounds more & more odd doesn't it?

The second car isn't odd, it's not unusual for them to have quick reponse security teams in hostile or hazardous areas.

[bangkokrick]

The third person was run down.

'Police said that the foreigner had used a radio to call colleagues for help immediately after the shooting - and that a second consular car turned up to rescue him.It is believed the third person killed was run over by the vehicle as it sped to his aid'.

Thanks BKrick...Yes I just now saw in another article that another car also came to his aid. Sounds more & more odd doesn't it?

The second car isn't odd, it's not unusual for them to have quick reponse security teams in hostile or hazardous areas.

He apparently called for the car following the incident. I think that what is odd is that it got there very quickly considering the usual traffic problems in Pakistan.

No worries about the quotes.

[Wallaby]

It is quite sad that in some parts of the US, when a number of people are killed, that all you would have to do was fill out a police report. Sounds more like Thailand.

What's sad? The police examine the information, pass on the information to the prosecuting authorities, and they make a determination if they think a crime has been commited. If not that's it, if so they take the case to court and let the legal system continue the process.

Really, that is amazing. Crims must have it pretty easy in the US.

In my country the police actually arrest people and can hold them in custody if they consider it serious. They don't just just pass on information. if a person is suspected of a serious offence he/she would be brought in for questioning and can be held for a time so that the matter can be further investigated. , if arrested for a serious crime then he/she would be held in custody without bail.

US crims must get a shock when they go to other countries and find the police have the power to arrest you and hold you in custody.

[mark45y]

It is quite sad that in some parts of the US, when a number of people are killed, that all you would have to do was fill out a police report. Sounds more like Thailand.

What's sad? The police examine the information, pass on the information to the prosecuting authorities, and they make a determination if they think a crime has been commited. If not that's it, if so they take the case to court and let the legal system continue the process.

Really, that is amazing. Crims must have it pretty easy in the US.

In my country the police actually arrest people and can hold them in custody if they consider it serious. They don't just just pass on information. if a person is suspected of a serious offence he/she would be brought in for questioning and can be held for a time so that the matter can be further investigated. , if arrested for a serious crime then he/she would be held in custody without bail.

US crims must get a shock when they go to other countries and find the police have the power to arrest you and hold you in custody.

I thought they had the Law and Order TV show on almost everywhere. 1. You get arrested and go to jail for questioning. 2. Taken before a judge and arraigned and bail is set or denied. 3. You show up for trial or bail is forfeited.

If you forfeit bail then the bounty hunters go after you. They are not cops but more like pirates and not bound by the same rules as cops. They work for cash.

I had a roommate who worked his way through college as a bounty hunter. One of the biggest ugliest men I have ever met. He was so ugly most of the runners would surrender as soon as they saw him. He didn't have much luck dating women either which made him real mean. He worked for a couple of bail bondsmen. It was a good college job except his room always smelled like gun oil.

[beechguy]

It is quite sad that in some parts of the US, when a number of people are killed, that all you would have to do was fill out a police report. Sounds more like Thailand.

What's sad? The police examine the information, pass on the information to the prosecuting authorities, and they make a determination if they think a crime has been commited. If not that's it, if so they take the case to court and let the legal system continue the process.

Really, that is amazing. Crims must have it pretty easy in the US.

In my country the police actually arrest people and can hold them in custody if they consider it serious. They don't just just pass on information. if a person is suspected of a serious offence he/she would be brought in for questioning and can be held for a time so that the matter can be further investigated. , if arrested for a serious crime then he/she would be held in custody without bail.

US crims must get a shock when they go to other countries and find the police have the power to arrest you and hold you in custody.

I didn't say crims don't get arrested, in the incident I mentioned earlier, they arrested the other two robbery suspects as soon as they captured them. They remained in jail until they went to trial, and then were sentenced to prison. My step father didn't have any problems because it was quite obvious to the police, and the prosecuters, that he was defending himself and my mother during an armed robbery of their business.

This incident in Pakistan isn't as clear, some of the reports I've read are saying they are going to hold the guy pending investigation, I'm not sure he has really been charged with anything yet. And considering how conflicting some of the news reports are, I think most of what has been written is just speculation on our parts. But from a picture I saw of his car, I would be interested to know how so much glass is missing out of his vehicle if he wasn't getting shot at.

Edited January 30, 2011 by beechguy

[Wallaby]

I thought they had the Law and Order TV show on almost everywhere.

Yes they have that here as well as CSI Miami etc etc etc. Can't stand the shows myself, maybe it's just because I've worked in criminal law for years and just can't stand to see the stupidity they try to pass off as reality.

But then again, they are very popular here. I'm just glad I have pay tv.

I didn't think the police in the US would only just pass on info. I've never been to the US but I think it is pretty standard anywhere that they do actually arrest people.

[beechguy]

I thought they had the Law and Order TV show on almost everywhere.

Yes they have that here as well as CSI Miami etc etc etc. Can't stand the shows myself, maybe it's just because I've worked in criminal law for years and just can't stand to see the stupidity they try to pass off as reality.

But then again, they are very popular here. I'm just glad I have pay tv.

I didn't think the police in the US would only just pass on info. I've never been to the US but I think it is pretty standard anywhere that they do actually arrest people.

Again, I didn't say they don't arrest suspects, but they just don't show up at an incident and immediately arrest everyone involved.

[bangkokrick]

It is quite sad that in some parts of the US, when a number of people are killed, that all you would have to do was fill out a police report. Sounds more like Thailand.

What's sad? The police examine the information, pass on the information to the prosecuting authorities, and they make a determination if they think a crime has been commited. If not that's it, if so they take the case to court and let the legal system continue the process.

Really, that is amazing. Crims must have it pretty easy in the US.

In my country the police actually arrest people and can hold them in custody if they consider it serious. They don't just just pass on information. if a person is suspected of a serious offence he/she would be brought in for questioning and can be held for a time so that the matter can be further investigated. , if arrested for a serious crime then he/she would be held in custody without bail.

US crims must get a shock when they go to other countries and find the police have the power to arrest you and hold you in custody.

I didn't say crims don't get arrested, in the incident I mentioned earlier, they arrested the other two robbery suspects as soon as they captured them. They remained in jail until they went to trial, and then were sentenced to prison. My step father didn't have any problems because it was quite obvious to the police, and the prosecuters, that he was defending himself and my mother during an armed robbery of their business.

This incident in Pakistan isn't as clear, some of the reports I've read are saying they are going to hold the guy pending investigation, I'm not sure he has really been charged with anything yet. And considering how conflicting some of the news reports are, I think most of what has been written is just speculation on our parts. But from a picture I saw of his car, I would be interested to know how so much glass is missing out of his vehicle if he wasn't getting shot at.

There were bullet holes in the windscreen, so would he have shot through the screen or would he have been shot through the screen? Don't know much about guns.

[flying]

There were bullet holes in the windscreen, so would he have shot through the screen or would he have been shot through the screen? Don't know much about guns.

Would tend to think if there is glass mainly outside the car on the hood it was caused by the occupant of the car doing the shooting.

If the glass is mainly in the car then the biker shot inward

[bangkokrick]

There were bullet holes in the windscreen, so would he have shot through the screen or would he have been shot through the screen? Don't know much about guns.

Would tend to think if there is glass mainly outside the car on the hood it was caused by the occupant of the car doing the shooting.

If the glass is mainly in the car then the biker shot inward

I think that this is pretty much the ky to the whole thing. Was he shot at before he fired on the 2 men on the bike and also why the American was carrying arms and why, if he was a diplomat, he was not provided with armed protection?

[gohmer]

Is it just me, or are there other's that read the Bangkok Post or Thaivisa.com who can actually understand a report written in English. The report clearly stated, but I will paraphrase, "Armed criminals who just committed a life-threatening crime on another person was obviously attempting to do the same on what they must of thought to be easy prey and a big catch got blown away by a cool-headed, self-reliant, well-trained, courageous American who properly, legally, and morally justifiably killed the dirty bas\tar\ds". That would make it 100% self-defense regardless of diplomatic immunity or not, so what is all this mindless debate over immunity or no immunity - its an irrelevant point so go back to dipping your hand in you shorts on another site. What is so frickin' hard for you lame twits to understand here?

Edited January 31, 2011 by gohmer

[bangkokrick]

Is it just me, or are there other's that read the Bangkok Post or Thaivisa.com who can actually understand a report written in English. The report clearly stated, but I will paraphrase, "Armed criminals who just committed a life-threatening crime on another person was obviously attempting to do the same on what they must of thought to be easy prey and a big catch got blown away by a cool-headed, self-reliant, well-trained, courageous American who properly, legally, and morally justifiably killed the dirty bas\tar\ds". That would make it 100% self-defense regardless of diplomatic immunity or not, so what is all this mindless debate over immunity or no immunity - its an irrelevant point so go back to dipping your hand in you shorts on another site. What is so frickin' hard for you lame twits to understand here?

So what has self defence got to do with anything. He still shot and killed 2 people. so I doubt that a plea of self defence. laws change from Country to Country for example if you killed someone in self defence in the UK you would still be very likely to get jail time. I guess that this does no apply in the US, but maybe does apply on Pakistan.

[slapout]

Well rick, not knowing what profession you have chosen for your life, I would guess it is neither the legal profession, law enforcement nor the military. Pakistan and several other countries with a growing population, with similar persuasion, towards those who are perceived to have something they want, are viewed as 'Indian Country' by many who work/live there.

Whether the shooter is a diplomat, minister, banker,school teacher, etc and these two fellows were threatening him, he has probably done the world a favor by eliminating the vermin.

[gohmer]

Is it just me, or are there other's that read the Bangkok Post or Thaivisa.com who can actually understand a report written in English. The report clearly stated, but I will paraphrase, "Armed criminals who just committed a life-threatening crime on another person was obviously attempting to do the same on what they must of thought to be easy prey and a big catch got blown away by a cool-headed, self-reliant, well-trained, courageous American who properly, legally, and morally justifiably killed the dirty bas\tar\ds". That would make it 100% self-defense regardless of diplomatic immunity or not, so what is all this mindless debate over immunity or no immunity - its an irrelevant point so go back to dipping your hand in you shorts on another site. What is so frickin' hard for you lame twits to understand here?

So what has self defence got to do with anything. He still shot and killed 2 people. so I doubt that a plea of self defence. laws change from Country to Country for example if you killed someone in self defence in the UK you would still be very likely to get jail time. I guess that this does no apply in the US, but maybe does apply on Pakistan.

I can see the correlation in laws between Pakistan and the UK, wasn't Pakistan one of you subjugated, controlled, and raped countries of past (British East India company ring a bell)? And, I think it was the US that principally forced the UK to abandoned such repressive colonialism after WWII. So I consider opinions about the ills of America to be as hypocritical as possible coming from someone in the UK considering there wouldn't even be a UK if the US didn't keep bailing your a$$ out, even today, your banks and economy have all but collapsed and would certainly have if the US's friendship to your stink-water island didn't produce massive amounts of commerce keeping you alive.

As far as self-defense. If the police in the US can clearly see that you defended your self (maybe as a result of witnesses), you will unlikely go to jail. If it is not clear, then you might go until a police report can be submitted to the district attorney, but even then, you might not. You might be arrested after the police conduct an investigation. If it is still not clear and there is any indication that the shooting was not to protect yourself as the result of having a fear for your life, then you might be arraigned of charges. But you don't just go to jail unless there is some evidence that you did something wrong.

[SerpentSea]

Is it just me, or are there other's that read the Bangkok Post or Thaivisa.com who can actually understand a report written in English. The report clearly stated, but I will paraphrase, "Armed criminals who just committed a life-threatening crime on another person was obviously attempting to do the same on what they must of thought to be easy prey and a big catch got blown away by a cool-headed, self-reliant, well-trained, courageous American who properly, legally, and morally justifiably killed the dirty bas\tar\ds". That would make it 100% self-defense regardless of diplomatic immunity or not, so what is all this mindless debate over immunity or no immunity - its an irrelevant point so go back to dipping your hand in you shorts on another site. What is so frickin' hard for you lame twits to understand here?

That is what the gunman himself said or respectively the US-embassy had declared. I wouldn't take this version without any doubts especially when there are other statements and witness accounts around that describe the incident in a very different way.

[SerpentSea]

As far as self-defense. If the police in the US can clearly see that you defended your self (maybe as a result of witnesses), you will unlikely go to jail. If it is not clear, then you might go until a police report can be submitted to the district attorney, but even then, you might not. You might be arrested after the police conduct an investigation. If it is still not clear and there is any indication that the shooting was not to protect yourself as the result of having a fear for your life, then you might be arraigned of charges. But you don't just go to jail unless there is some evidence that you did something wrong.

A foreigner in a car with faked car number plate, illegally caring fire arms, killed two people, involved in a hit and run that left another person dead and injured over a dozen people, tried to fled the scene and so on.

In the USA he could just tell the police it was self defense, they will believe it and good is, no arrest, no jail? I doubt that.