Thread: What should diplomatic immunity cover?

Raymond Davies shot two men who pulled up on a motorbike next to him, they were carrying guns. Davies is ex special forces and was on a mission for the CIA, he fired ten shots, getting out of the car to shoot one man twice in the back as he was running away, his body was about thirty feet from the bike. That is way past self defence.
So should a foreign national, on what amounts to a spying mission, be allowed to get away with murder on the street of a large city because his government says he has diplomatic immunity? Or are the American government making fools of themselves defending the indefensible, and a lot of enemies in a part of the world where they have more than enough already?

Something you left out.

"Pakistan's central government faces public pressure from Islamist and student groups not to release Mr. Davis, who shot dead the two men on Jan. 27 in the center of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. Mr. Davis has said the men were trying to rob him at gunpoint."

By your own words, the two men had weapons. I know that Australia is disarmed, but in common law if you have a scene where you have three armed men, two are dead, and the standing survivor claims robbery, diplomatic immunity is moot as it is a clear case of self defense.

Unless you have video evidence.......

I think this is better placed on the debate forum. I've also added a daily telegraph link which provides a little more background.

Raymond Davis incident: What sort of diplomat carries a loaded gun? - Telegraph

Originally Posted by Dudester

Something you left out.

"Pakistan's central government faces public pressure from Islamist and student groups not to release Mr. Davis, who shot dead the two men on Jan. 27 in the center of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. Mr. Davis has said the men were trying to rob him at gunpoint."

By your own words, the two men had weapons. I know that Australia is disarmed, but in common law if you have a scene where you have three armed men, two are dead, and the standing survivor claims robbery, diplomatic immunity is moot as it is a clear case of self defense.

Unless you have video evidence.......

Perhaps you missed something,

he fired ten shots, getting out of the car to shoot one man twice in the back as he was running away, his body was about thirty feet from the bike.

This was in the middle of the second largest city in Pakistan in broad daylight, Pakistan is an ally of the United States.

The rules of diplomatic immunity are meant to stop hostile governments putting pressure on diplomats by framing them or blackmailing them, not to protect a government's hired killers. Something similar happened in London a few years ago when a policewoman was shot dead from an embassy window without provocation and in front of witnesses. Can such cases be differentiated without damaging the diplomatic process is more to the point to me than what happens to this individual. Personally I don't live by the sword, when it starts coming back on those who do I do not rejoice, but neither do I mourn.

Olly, I never heard of this guy or this case. Was he former U.S. Special Ops or former British SAS or SBS (Special Boat Service? Don't remember) working for the SAS?

The guy was justified either way. If he was in the U.S. or London I would say the same. But being in Pakistan and a spy? I can't imagine working as an undercover law enforcement agent around dangerous criminal anywhere in the Western World, so, I'd imagine this guy would have to be on his P's and Q's and ready to rock and roll till the last show when anything goes down. And it went down. There can only be one winner. He won.

If he was just smoking innocent Joe's strolling by that would be different. I'd say he was criminal then.

Thank you for moving the thread and the link, Baron. There is a link half way down the article to a bad video of the initial interview with Davies, he is amazingly cool, as one of the police says in Punjabi "This man just killed two people". He does not come over distressed, like someone in a foreign country who has killed two people in self defence, he comes over like an executioner who is now assessing his exit.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Thank you for moving the thread and the link, Baron. There is a link half way down the article to a bad video of the initial interview with Davies, he is amazingly cool, as one of the police says in Punjabi "This man just killed two people". He does not come over distressed, like someone in a foreign country who has killed two people in self defence, he comes over like an executioner who is now assessing his exit.

I'm not expressing an opinion for or against your original post, Olly. It's a question of being in possession of sufficient facts to voice any kind of informed judgment. I'm not.

To make a judgment of what's going on inwardly based on outward appearance, in a shoddy quality video at that, is pretty weak. Any psychologist worth his salt will tell you that body language and any other outward signs are a limited source of information in such circumstances. It would take repeated interviews to even begin to form a more reliable judgment. The person you quoted was also biased.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Olly, I never heard of this guy or this case. Was he former U.S. Special Ops or former British SAS or SBS (Special Boat Service? Don't remember) working for the SAS?

The guy was justified either way. If he was in the U.S. or London I would say the same. But being in Pakistan and a spy? I can't imagine working as an undercover law enforcement agent around dangerous criminal anywhere in the Western World, so, I'd imagine this guy would have to be on his P's and Q's and ready to rock and roll till the last show when anything goes down. And it went down. There can only be one winner. He won.

If he was just smoking innocent Joe's strolling by that would be different. I'd say he was criminal then.

Really writ, is that the way the law works in America, that if you shoot someone in the back twice as they are running away it is okay if you thought they were going to rob you earlier? Over here a farmer got sent down for murder for shooting a teenage burglar in the back when he was running away a couple of years ago. Surely self defence means defending yourself, not carrying the war into the other persons court.

If it is really legal to shoot a fleeing person in the back, more than once, with lethal intent in the United States then I suppose that it negates my question about how to deal with blatantly criminal acts within the diplomatic community, but I doubt that it is.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Really writ, is that the way the law works in America, that if you shoot someone in the back twice as they are running away it is okay if you thought they were going to rob you earlier? Over here a farmer got sent down for murder for shooting a teenage burglar in the back when he was running away a couple of years ago. Surely self defence means defending yourself, not carrying the war into the other persons court.

If it is really legal to shoot a fleeing person in the back, more than once, with lethal intent in the United States then I suppose that it negates my question about how to deal with blatantly criminal acts within the diplomatic community, but I doubt that it is.

Another was also convicted of GBH because he caught a fleeing burglar by using a rugby tackle. The burglar later sued for damages.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Really writ, is that the way the law works in America, that if you shoot someone in the back twice as they are running away it is okay if you thought they were going to rob you earlier? Over here a farmer got sent down for murder for shooting a teenage burglar in the back when he was running away a couple of years ago. Surely self defence means defending yourself, not carrying the war into the other persons court.

If it is really legal to shoot a fleeing person in the back, more than once, with lethal intent in the United States then I suppose that it negates my question about how to deal with blatantly criminal acts within the diplomatic community, but I doubt that it is.

It's not legal in the U.S., Olly, you'll go to prison.

I just stated the guy was justified. In my mind the two aren't the same thing.

I had a uncle that was a cop. He's told me that he as well as other cops used to tell people that if someone breaks into your house and gets outside, shoot them, and drag them back in the house.

What's justified and what's legal aren't always the same thing. Some guys show up with weapons on bike next to you in Pakistan they mean bad intent. I'd kill him too to be honest. The one shot in the back that is. Not my fall he was running away. The fight was the other direction and he brought the fight.

Just my opinion.

Of course I don't have the courage it takes to do undercover work against dangerous people, so, I would never have been in Pakistan in the first place.

Originally Posted by Baron

I'm not expressing an opinion for or against your original post, Olly. It's a question of being in possession of sufficient facts to voice any kind of informed judgment. I'm not.

To make a judgment of what's going on inwardly based on outward appearance, in a shoddy quality video at that, is pretty weak. Any psychologist worth his salt will tell you that body language and any other outward signs are a limited source of information in such circumstances. It would take repeated interviews to even begin to form a more reliable judgment. The person you quoted was also biased.

The facts which do not seem to be disputed by anyone appear to be; that he killed two people, one of them as they fled; that the Pakistani police say he worked for the CIA and that the Americans are vague, but insist he has immunity; That he was previously with American Special forces.
As regards the video I am not saying that it proves anything about that particular case, it may well have been that two opportunist thieves saw a westerner alone in a car, but they certainly picked the wrong person there, listen to him, the policeman isn't trying to prove something, no-one disputes he killed two people, I think, rather, it does not seem credible.

I know countries put such people out there doing their dirty work, but that is not diplomacy, and they should not be covered by diplomatic law. How one resolves this I don't know. Diplomacy may have had a bad press lately, with all their dirty linen being aired, but it is better than what lies one step beyond, and this sort of thing puts diplomacy in jeopardy.

You train a man to react in a certain way to a given situation. You use training techniques that have been developed over the ages and brought to perfection. You drill into the minds of your trainees that when hostile intent is perceived reaction must be swift and deadly. Fine details such as which direction the assailant is running are not part of the computation. There is no time to consider such a point. Battle is joined, whether in the bush, in the desert, or on a city street reaction must be swift and deadly. If the soldier stops to think he can die. So he reacts as he was trained to react. He's sharp, and he meets the perceived threat as he was taught.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

It's not legal in the U.S., Olly, you'll go to prison.

I just stated the guy was justified. In my mind the two aren't the same thing.

I had a uncle that was a cop. He's told me that he as well as other cops used to tell people that if someone breaks into your house and gets outside, shoot them, and drag them back in the house.

What's justified and what's legal aren't always the same thing. Some guys show up with weapons on bike next to you in Pakistan they mean bad intent. I'd kill him too to be honest. The one shot in the back that is. Not my fall he was running away. The fight was the other direction and he brought the fight.

Just my opinion.

Of course I don't have the courage it takes to do undercover work against dangerous people, so, I would never have been in Pakistan in the first place.

Texas has a law called “The Castle Defense”. I bring this up because of the incidents in the Pakistan case. Joe Black was at home and observed a pair of burglars ransacking his neighbor’s house. Joe called 911 and was giving them information. For whatever reason, cops weren’t getting there fast enough and Joe saw the burglars leaving. Still on the phone with 911, Joe took his shotgun outside. The burglars had to cross Joe’s property to leave. Joe is heard telling the burglars to stop where they were. The burglars decided to run. Joe was in fear for his life. Joe fired twice. One of the burglars “was hit in the back” (actually it was his shoulder as he passed Joe).

Since the burglars were black, the black activists demanded that Joe be lynched as “He shot two innocent black men on their way from grandma’s house to bible class”.

Joe’s case was brought up in front a grand jury and he was no billed.

BTW-the burglars were career criminals, over twenty misdemeanor convictions on each, and oh yeah, burglaries in Joe’s neighborhood came to a screeching halt.

As Olly pointed out, the pair of men that were shot had weapons. They probably intended to rob a westerner alone in a car, only they didn’t have a clue who they were messing with. When it turned out that their victim was armed and knew how to defend himself, one died really quick and the other died trying to get away.

The local fuzz, with an axe to grind against the US decided to make an example of Mr. Davies. Obama is intervening, claiming diplomatic immunity for Mr. Davies’, meaning there’s more to this story.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Texas has a law called “The Castle Defense”. I bring this up because of the incidents in the Pakistan case. Joe Black was at home and observed a pair of burglars ransacking his neighbor’s house. Joe called 911 and was giving them information. For whatever reason, cops weren’t getting there fast enough and Joe saw the burglars leaving. Still on the phone with 911, Joe took his shotgun outside. The burglars had to cross Joe’s property to leave. Joe is heard telling the burglars to stop where they were. The burglars decided to run. Joe was in fear for his life. Joe fired twice. One of the burglars “was hit in the back” (actually it was his shoulder as he passed Joe).

Hmm... weird. I would have thought they would have called it "The Ranch Defense" in Texas.

Since the burglars were black, the black activists demanded that Joe be lynched as “He shot two innocent black men on their way from grandma’s house to bible class”.

I see certain things get under your skin Jar-reen. I was in the Corps once too. Never a sniper though. I looked better in Dress Blues.

Welp, good thing Mr. Black wasn't in Jasper, Texas.