The media is picking up on a story about an individual affiliated with the US consul in Pakistan. This US citizen got cash out of an ATM and was then approached by a pair of Pakistanis on a motorbike with firearms. He apparently felt threatened and engaged them with a Beretta handgun (possibly a Beretta 92FS/M9). One died at the scene, another later. As the US embassy responded, a third Pakistani was hit by an embassy SUV and also died.
Apparently, even though Pakistan is seemingly influenced by the British Common Law tradition, their self defense laws are bizarre:
Under Pakistani law one can only act in self-defense if attacked first. Merely being approached by someone wielding a gun is insufficient cause under law for the victim to pull the trigger. Also, when firing in self-defense it is only admissible to aim at non-life threatening parts of the assailant's body, such as arms or legs.
So, clearly, if you're an Al-Qaeda affiliated extremist who wants to assassinate
the prime minister, then you should only aim for the non-life threatening parts of the body. Got it.
Frankly, I don't find the SUV-incident to be surprising (
and while it is understandable, it is not necessarily excusable). If you've never left the US, then you haven't experienced third world traffic. Imagine third world traffic laws, while responding to a 911 call, in the midst of the LA-Rodney King Riots, while driving a car that says, "Hey, I'm either a big bad drug dealer or a white po-po man that's keeping you down." That probably approximates what the embassy response team was doing when they showed up on the scene.
I also don't find the shooting incident surprising. This is a corner of the world where if you are a Westerner, and you allow yourself to be held hostage by the locals, then
you may end up with your cranium permanently separated from your neck. This is definitely better a case of "better to be tried by 12 (or airlifted out on your diplomatic immunity passport on a C-17) than to have your nugget cut off by 6" sort of case, at least based on the media reports available today.
Remember, Pakistan's stupid gun laws are exactly what some people in this country
have proposed. I'm not suggesting any causation. Obviously Pakistan's stability issues go significantly deeper than their "shoot for the knees!" law. But still, they don't seem to do much to stem violence in that country.
*Note: links in this post are not endorsements for the broad content of associated blogs/links. I haven't fully reviewed their content, and link to them only because the associated link illustrates my point.
Raymond Davis fired from within his car at 2 men on a motor cycle shattering his rear wind shield without a gun drawn or un holstered. For all intentional prepossessing they could have been plain clothed police men or intelligence officers. To shoot and run from the scene of the crime and his back up in support running over an innocent bystander does not make it self defense. What's more why was he armed? what was he doing with sensitive intelligence? And why did no one less than Obama claim he had diplomatic immunity. All dirty....... He is an American and maybe you think it's ok to kill dirty pakis. If that's your attitude go to hell, I can tell you think everyone else is Al Qaida or Taliban may it's you and your kind that are the real terrorists.
ReplyDeleteAt the time this post was written, much less was known about the incident. Knowing what we know now, heck yeah it looks like there are many unanswered questions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are three points.
First, the incident illustrates craziness in Pakistani law. Almost any country in the tradition of British Common Law allows self-defense before the adversary strikes a blow. If you are in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury then you can defend yourself. Brandishing a weapon at someone is likely justification for force in self-defense in almost all jurisdictions under the common law tradition. Moreoever, defense entails stopping the threat. It is impractical and nearly impossible to try to shoot to wound. Do the police in Pakistan only hit you with a club on the feet or arms (not the head or neck)? Do the police and military shoot only to wound? I rather doubt it.
Next, the brouhaha over "unlicensed firearms" possessed by all parties in this incident illustrates the silliness of gun control schemes. Getting a license for a firearm in Pakistan is primarily a matter of your ability to pay bribes to the appropriate corrupt authorities and being of the right political persuasions. That doesn't seem to stop anyone from making, owning, or trading a wide variety of military grade equipment, up to and including heavy machine guns and explosives. A few unlicensed GLocks and Berettas is the least of Pakistan's problems.
Finally, nothing would make me happier than to write Pakistan a final check on our way out of Afghanistan and remind them that if any Paki WMD ever comes close to harming American interests we will help the Pakistanis remove/secure their capabilities. Beyond their WMDs I don't care what Pakistanis do in Pakistan. I am very concerned about the precedent that unaccountable drone strikes cause. I think we've spent a ton of treasure and spilled plenty of blood (coalition & local) in the Afghanistan-Pakistan corner of the world with disappointingly little to show for it. I am very sympathetic to the challenges in that part of the world and understand that even though there are many miliants in parts of Pakistan and that the majority of Pakistanis dislike the US, most Pakistanis are not Talibs or AQ terrorists. I would like nothing more than for Pakistan to get its house in order, for the rule of law to break out there, and for the place to become a stable trade partner for our mutual benefit.
However, it is unfortunate that Islamabad seems unwilling or unable to reign in the militants within their borders. I suspect that there would be fewer "diplomats" like Mr. Davis in Pakistan if there were fewer WMDs and jihadis, which would probably be better for everyone, especially the locals caught in the crossfire. So long as those "diplomats" are there, they will need protection, whether it be from militants or from common thieves who run kidnapping schemes for ransoms. Westerners in parts of Pakistan who travel unarmed can end up like, well, Daniel Pearl.
I can be drawn into a debate here, regarding pak gun laws or regional politics. Also it was not long ago America was everyone's sweetheart in Pakistan. Now, can you bear to hear the truth. I wonder?!
ReplyDelete