Two boys shot dead by Raymond Davis, an American national, in the Mozang area of Lahore; one biker crushed to death by a speeding US consulate vehicle that arrives on the scene presumably to rescue Davis, who tries to escape but is captured. The consulate vehicle escapes after overrunning the unfortunate biker.
The incident has left a trail of three bodies and several questions.
Who is Davis — accredited diplomat or a civilian contracted by the US consulate for ‘technical advice’, a term that can cover a broad range of activities? Why was he carrying a pistol, a Glock 17 I am told, which is a 9mm semi-automatic weapon that packs the punch with 17 rounds in a standard magazine. It is used by pros and Davis does seem like one.
Why did Davis try to run away from the scene after displaying the calm ability to shoot a pistol with a steady hand, get out of the car, make a video of the bodies, and talk to someone on the wireless?
From what’s known so far, it does not appear that the killed boys intended to shoot Davis. They were carrying local-made pistols (terrible choice); one didn’t have bullets in it, while the other had five rounds of local ammo, another bad amateur choice. There is no indication that they tried to fire at Davis. It is interesting to note where Davis fired from, in what direction and where the boys took the bullets.
Davis fired from inside his car, slightly above the steering wheel and towards the right. That would mean the boys were parked ahead of his car, probably close to the right edge of the bonnet. Not exactly the right place if you want to shoot down a driver. Most of the bullets, it appears from the autopsy, entered their bodies from the back — that would mean they were facing away from the shooter, or were trying to escape at the time they were shot down. If this is correct then, at least at the moment Davis shot them, they were not a threat to his life. Itchy fingers perhaps?
One source told me the ammo he used was hollow-point; another says it was ballpoint. With hollow-point the boys stood no chance at all. The round enters the body and flattens, causing terrible tissue damage.
Glock pistols have a two-stage trigger safety mechanism because there is no external safety catch. The weapon will fire when the trigger is depressed normally beyond the first stage afforded by the internal trigger safety mechanism. Why did he fire 7 shots if the idea was to incapacitate? Since Davis has claimed self-defence he will have to prove that his life was in grave danger when he shot the boys.
People are angry. There is a sense, not entirely wrong, that Americans act haughty, even though the blame for this must go to Pakistani governments. If the governments fail to observe the protocols, too eager to roll out the red carpet even for lower ranking American officials, one can’t blame the Americans for taking Pakistan for granted.
Consider the attitude of the public affairs officers at the US embassy and the consulate in Lahore. They have refused to ID Davis. Instead of helping in investigating the killing of three Pakistanis, the US embassy has now demanded that this guy be immediately released. And pray, how and why, unless all these questions are answered? The government should clarify when, how, why, and if at all, a foreign national can carry a weapon? What exactly is the status of this man, his ID and the nature of his work here? What is the protocol for the movement of American nationals, whether in official or personal capacity? Are the Americans using SOPs for their protection that may violate local laws? If so, why?
The government should set up a website, giving information on all legal and other questions thrown up by this violent incident. It must also tell the people why the US embassy has made such a demand. The US government cannot spring the guy until all legal issues are settled. Neither can the federal and Punjab governments afford to let him walk away just like that.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 31st, 2011.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ