Shoot A Police Officer ... Get Away With It Because Of Anti Muslim Climate

This is absolutely insane! An admitted terrorist who shot at police has been acquitted. How could this possibly happen?

The accused, known as BUSB during the trial, but now identified as Bradley Umar Baladjam was carrying two concealed, loaded pistols, which he subsequently admitted was “to prepare for a terrorist act … motivated by his religious beliefs”.

When approached by uniformed police, one with his gun drawn, the accused pulled out one of the pistols and started shooting, wounding one of the officers. He was charged with, among other things “attempting to murder or cause grievous bodily harm to police Sergeant Adam Wolsey and shooting at him with intent to resist apprehension”.

At a judge only trial, Judge Leonie Flannery acquitted BUSB of these charges on the grounds that intent to shoot at the officer could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The fact that the incident occurred on November 8, 2005 and the accused could still not be publicly identified during the trial suggests he was still awaiting trial on other charges. In fact, the acquittal in this case was handed down on June 10, 2011, but has not been allowed to be publicized until recently.

One can only hope this arsehole is currently in prison after having been sentenced on other matters. A response by the NSW police minister to a question without notice from Fred Nile shows the matter has been through multiple trials and retrials. Even so, five years is far too long for charges to be decided.

BUSB’s defence was that he had only intended to fire a warning shot.

Excuse me? Since when do you get to fire a warning shot at the police? You don’t get to do that in this country, Judge Flannery.

The judge found that BUSB:

“… put the pistol in his pants because he was concerned for his safety, and in the state he was in, brought about by his illness, his concern that he was going to be arrested, and the climate of anti-Muslim feeling in the community at the time, he believed that he might be harmed by police".

Umm … he was carrying a pistol because he was concerned he might be arrested and might be harmed by police. So, one might draw the conclusion that he was carrying the pistol with the intent of using it to defend himself against police. But of course, he always intended to just fire in the air if confronted.

If so, how did he fire a horizontal “warning shot”?

In an absurd piece of what one might describe as PC judicial activism, Judge Flannery stated:

''I am not satisfied that he put the Browning [firearm] in his pants because he was planning to shoot his arresting officers”

Well, he didn’t have to intend to when he left home. The question is whether the intent was formed at any time right up to his arrest and existed at the time he fired the weapon. A warning shot is fired into the air. To wound one of the arresting officers, he must have fired at an angle equal to or below horizontal. How is there reasonable doubt as to intent?

And what is this bullshit about the climate of anti-Muslim feeling somehow casting doubt as to his intent? That is a non sequitur.

The accused’s statement above, that he put the pistol in his pants because “he was concerned he may be arrested” is surely evidence supporting the claim of intent.

This is not a case where a judge should be assisting the accused by trying to find ways in which he could possibly have not meant to fire at the police. Baladjam is a militant Muslim. His actions and views are diametrically opposite to the fundamental precepts of our society. He does not deserve assistance via judicial activism.

This is an absurd verdict. Worse, it opens the possibility of others attempting to use the judgement as a precedent and proffer a defence of fear.

The judge should have her appointment reviewed on the grounds of competence.

Equally as disturbing is the abject bungling of this matter from the outset by both the terrorism squad and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Why were inexperienced officers from the local police station asked to arrest a terrorism suspect?

The description of the attempted arrest reads like a storyline of the Keystone Cops (except for the speaking part, obviously):

"The two junior officers had trouble getting out of the car: one could not open her car door because of a child safety lock, another struggled with her seat belt. None of the officers was wearing body armour and only one appeared to have his firearm drawn. He later said he approached the man, saying: 'Mate, hang on a minute. Can we have a word?'"

They were given a description of the suspect by the terrorism squad over a mobile phone while they were driving down the street looking for him.

These officers should never have been placed in this situation. They were clearly inadequately prepared and that is clearly the fault of their superiors and the terrorism squad.

According to the NSW police minister, Baladjam was acquitted of three indictable offences (apparently the most serious ones) and convicted of two, related firearms offences.

This greasy prick should have been taken by the terrorism squad and charged with everything available. How could someone admit to carrying concealed firearms with intent “to prepare for a terrorist act” and because “he was concerned he may be arrested”, shoot a police officer and not end up being found guilty of at least several serious offences?

Surely there are a string of other charges available in such a matter. I'm not a fan of the trifecta (resist arrest, assault police, hinder police) as it is regularly abused, but surely it was appropriate here. Why was Baladjam not charged with every offence the police and DPP could think of in case some of the main charges did not succeed? All he ended up with were two firearms convictions.

Additionally, the public might well ask how a competent prosecutor could not secure a conviction on ANY of the three most serious charges, even in the face of an activist judge.

Perhaps it may have been better had the police just blown his head off.

No wonder militant Muslims are acting with such confidence in Western countries. When they see things like this, they must be laughing at us. This is precisely the time we need to go in as hard as possible against these people, not manufacture reasons to acquit them.

I suppose we should be thankful we're not in the UK: he might have sued the police for infringing his human right to pursue jihad ... and won.

The police are often justifiably criticized for their performance and their attitude toward the public. This is because we need and expect an honest, competent police service who see themselves as part of the community.

The quid pro quo is that police should expect that if they are shot at when making a legitimate arrest, they will be backed with the full support of their superiors, the DPP, the judiciary and the general public. Most certainly, they should expect the full range of charges to be laid and a judge who does not search for reasonable doubt via spurious logic.