Chapman didn't harm Luster either. He picked him up with a small scuffle, but no mistreatment.
Because of the scuffle, mexican police were called, and they capture Chapman and his crew a few blocks away. They took Luster into custody, along with Chapman and company.
The next day they turned Luster over to the FBI, who was already enroute to Mexico to apprehend Luster, having received the same tip as Chapman and having gone through approriate channels.
Shortly after Chapman and company were released on bail, under misdemeanor charges his own lawyer said were no big deal.
Chapman later skipped showing up for his trial in Mexico, and now he is under a lawful extradition order submitted through official channels based on a signed treaty between Mexico and the United States, a treaty which also allowed us to get Luster, along with thousands of other criminals, back from Mexico.
Anybody want to argue about the treaty, that's fine. Lets discuss that, at least it's a rational discussion. I say it's worth it to get all our criminals back from Mexico, to have to also send THEIR criminals back to them. The alternative is to scrap the treaty. Then we don't have to send our citizens to mexico, but they won't send theirs to us.
In which case, any american can slip into mexico, commit crimes, and if they get back here are scot free. Like Chapman.
But it also means that the 11 million illegal immigrants can commit crimes here, and then if they slip back to mexico, we can't get them back to prosecute.
If you DON'T want to scrap the treaty, then we have to follow the treaty with Chapman. We can't make selective enforcement based on OUR interpretation of mexican laws. As soon as we do, they will do the same thing.
Last year, some mexican authorities decided to do that with the treaty, refusing to send back people who faced life in prison. The mexican supreme court ruled that they can't do that under the treaty terms.
We can't govern our foreign policy on an individual basis simply because of what we think about the specific case.
Chapman will have his day in extradition court to argue that he faces persecution if he is sent to Mexico. A judge will rule on that motion, not his devoted TV audience.
If he is sent back to Mexico, he will be a highly visible case, and it is unlikely he will get anything other than superb treatment. I rather think he'll settle this thing, send them some money, and be on probation.
Having known for years of the deep corruption at every level of the Mexican judicial system, and watching the Mexican government openly and daily flout our immigration laws, I have a low opinion of their government in general. (And it's difficult emotionally to always take the high road when our enemies profit, often at our expense, by taking the low one. But I realize I shouldn't let that emotion interfere with my thinking.)
However, I'm willing to be proven wrong about my expectation of injustice where the Chapmans are concerned. And I certainly want to believe what you say about them being safe in a Mexican prison should it come to that. If their fame will make that happen, then good. I'll await developments with interest.
By the way, in my research today I read that an NBC affiliate has reported that the decision about whether to extradite the Chapmans to Mexico will be made by Condoleezza Rice. It was just a one-sentence statement, and the affiliate wasn't identified, so I don't know how accurate it is.
And for the record, I'm not among the posters who've accused you of a pro-Luster bias. (I believe you know that.)