http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/scared-muslim-let-off-police-shooting/story-e6freuzi-1226132678893

A MUSLIM terror suspect who wounded a policeman in a gunfight escaped conviction on serious shooting charges after a judge found "anti-Muslim sentiment" made him fear for his safety.

A judge found the man had a loaded gun down his pants when police approached him.

But the judge found he had the gun not because he had planned to shoot the officers but because he was concerned for his safety.

It is understood the officers involved in the arrest of the man in November 2005 left the force as a result of the incident.

A suppression order has now been lifted on the June judgment by Sydney District Court Judge Leonie Flannery, who acquitted the man of shooting at Sergeant Adam Wolsey with intent to murder, shooting at him with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, and shooting at him with intent to resist apprehension.

In the judge-alone trial, the man pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Sgt Wolsey had been asked by a supervisor to arrest the man, wanted over terrorism-related offences. For legal reasons The Daily Telegraph cannot publish the outcome of those charges against him.

Sgt Wolsey's evidence was that he, Sergeant Bates and Senior Constables Weston and Behringer, drove past the man on Wilson Rd and followed him before stopping.

Sgt Wolsey stated he and Sgt Bates spoke to the man who spun around, pulled a Browning pistol out of his pants and fired.

Judge Flannery accepted one of the three shots fired by the man struck Sgt Wolsey in the hand. The man was struck by a bullet from Sgt Bates' gun.

The Crown argued the man deliberately fired upon police to avoid arrest.

The man maintained he did not fire at police but at the horizon in what was intended to be a warning shot so he could flee.

The man testified he was sick at the time and jumpy about surveillance and possible police questions.

Judge Flannery accepted it was a reasonable possibility he may have focused on Sgt Bates during the arrest, not noticed Sgt Wolsey, and fired a "warning shot in panic".

"I am not satisfied that he put the Browning in his pants because he was planning to shoot his arresting officers, rather he did so because he was concerned for his safety, and the state he was in brought about 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 the police."

The man was convicted on lesser charges of firing a gun in a public place and using an unauthorised firearm and will be sentenced on September 23.

I read somewhere, that this fun was unregistered. So is she saying it is okay to have an unregistered gun if you fear for your life?
Anyone can use that excuse.

Moslem acquitted, "on serious shooting charges after a judge found "anti-Muslim sentiment" made him fear for his safety."

Effectively this judge has said that it is OK to have an unregistered pistol, and shoot a policeman, if you then say that you 'fear for your safety', BECAUSE,.......you are a moslem.

This is not a good 'message' to be 'broadcasting' to the moslem community.

And, can this decision by the court, now be used in future cases, as a 'precedent' , as a defence for possession of an unregistered pistol or long-arm ?

IMO, this decision is coming close to establishing and justifying one law for moslems, and [presumably] another law for everyone else, regards the unlawful use of firearms.

I don't like it.






p.s.
Personally, i believe that everyone over the age of say, 25 years old, who has never had a drink driving, or [illicit] drug use conviction, or, a criminal conviction [in the last 20 years], should be permitted to own, and keep a firearm in their own home, for the protection of themselves, and their property.

Which is just reflecting good Australian values.     ;)

Google;
Every Man Should Have A Rifle, Henry Lawson


But i know that i'm just dreaming.





+++

Luke 11:21
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
22  But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

pffft yadda, everyone knows that henry Lawson had a loaded dog.

Why is this story posted on two different forums?

Obviously Oz politics is being spammed by anti-Muslim hate-mongerers.

Most members are banned from this board or refuse to post here. I like to keep Abu in the loop.

Must be another case of that pro-Muslim favourtism we see all the time...

fd, those who are banned are those who repeatedly broke the rules, and refused all warnings.

You know this because I had to personally ask you to ban each and every one of them.

I was so lenient with them all, but they all refused flatly to post by the rules of this forum, and so they were eventually banned, for being rude, crude extremely abusive, or a combination of all three.

Those who chose instead to behave close to civil human beings have so far not been banned. And some of them are extremely anti-Islam, so the idea I just banned anyone will nilly who I didn't agree with is not quite consistent with the facts is it?

I was just explaining the situation Abu. I did not put that idea into your head.

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:18pm:

Most members are banned from this board or refuse to post here. I like to keep Abu in the loop.

Oh??? Interesting.

falah wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 3:58pm:

Obviously Oz politics is being spammed by anti-Muslim hate-mongerers.

Are you saying that a lot of people are carrying around with them the equivalent of the holy koran, a book known for promoting hate and anti-everything that is non-muslim?