KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 27): Police officer Mohd Firdaus Rosli who allegedly accidently shot Norizan Salleh on Oct 30, 2009, does not believe that multiple firearms discharging at a single moving vehicle on the Middle Ring Road 2 (MRR2) will endanger the lives of the public.

At the Kuala Lumpur High Court today, Mohd Firdaus disagreed with Norizan’s lead counsel N Surendran when the latter asked if his and his fellow officers’ action of firing continuously at the car was more dangerous than letting the car (with Norizan) escape.

However, he was unsure that 15 firearms were fired at the car on the night of the incident.

Surendran: “Would you dispute the chemical report that 15 firearms were discharged at the car that night?”

Mohd Firdaus: “I’m not sure.”

Surendran: “Do you agree that there were no firearms in the car?”

Mohd Firdaus: “At that time I didn’t know and I didn’t see any firearms aimed at us. When we inspected the car that’s when we realised there were no firearms.”

Surendran: “Do you dispute that seven submachine guns, two pistols and six revolvers were discharged at the car? Do you agree that discharging 15 firearms at the vehicle was an extreme action?”

Mohd Firdaus: “I didn’t know the number of the firearms discharged at the car. I just know what I had on me because there were other police cars chasing the vehicle too.”

Surendran then established that Norizan and her friends in the car were merely trying to escape from the police roadblock which was carried out under “Ops Tutup”.

Mohd Firdaus pointed out he felt that his life was in danger as the vehicle’s driver was trying to crush (menghimpit) a police patrol car.

Surendran: “Do you agree your actions and the actions of your fellow officers in firing continuously at the car along the MRR2 highway was far more dangerous (to the public) than just letting that car escape?”

Firdaus: “No, I don’t agree.”

Surendran: “Even though they didn’t shoot back at you?”

Firdaus: “I disagree.”

When questioned, Mohd Firdaus said he was not aware of the vehicle’s occupants as the car was still moving and that his intention was to stop the car from causing “worse harm”.

Surendran also pointed out that strangely, Mohd Firdaus had shared the same testimony with the driver of his police patrol car Nicholas Joseph, verbatim.

However, Mohd Firdaus’ reply was that he “didn’t know” why Joseph’s witness testimony was the very same as his, word for word, and he continued denying that there was any discussion amongst the police officers involved in the case after the incident has happened.

Surendran also accused Mohd Firdaus of hiding details of the bullet-ridden car, as his police report only comprised warning shots fired into the air and shots fired at the car’s tyres.

Mohd Firdaus denied hiding anything, stating that he reported his actions and not those of his fellow officers.

Touching on Norizan’s allegations that Mohd Firdaus was the officer who kicked her and stomped on her as she was crawling out of the car after being shot, the latter denied acting in such a manner.

“When our car stopped, I was trying to get the driver out of the car and to switch off the engine. After I got the driver out, I cuffed him. I didn’t see what happened to the plaintiff. I just knew that there was another officer that was assisting the plaintiff.

“I didn’t know who the officer was because it was very chaotic at that time, and the officer then informed me that the plaintiff was shot. I then ordered another car to call for an ambulance,” said Mohd Firdaus.

However, before Surendran could pursue his line of questioning, Judge Datuk Hue Siew Kheng called for adjournment and said that the next hearing will be on Oct 12 or Dec 13.

The defendants were represented by the Federal Territories AG’s Chambers lawyers Wan Suhaila Mohd and Lee Keng Fatt.

Surendran was also accompanied by lawyer Latheefa Koya.

by Azril Annuar