Hard News: When that awful thing happens
425 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Grant, thank you for your posts. You are an inspiration to me. I wrote this in your honour.
Nz native, the tone of your post suggests that the police brought this on themselves. They didn't. The only person to blame for this is Jan Molenaar. Several posters have already pointed out that he was most likely a bomb ready to go off, and that anything could have triggered his homicidal rage. It is frankly offensive to suggest that our drug laws have anything to do with this tragedy, when the blame lies entirely with one person.
-
Genius, Scott.
"I had to be prepared. So I put on my DVD of Die Hard III and watched it. Then I got in the car and drove up to the police cordon with my hunting knife in my back pocket.""
-
LOL, Scott
-
No, it wouldn't fix it. It might've fixed it if a register had existed prior to the change, but it wouldn't have fixed things retroactively.
But would it stop it from happening in future?
That's the chief benefit - allowing proper policing of whether those whose licenses lapse or are disqualified have disposed of all their toys.
-
When executing a search warrant on a drug dealer’s house I would have thought it would be standard practice for the police to be armed.
Why? We Are Not America, and nor do we want to be.
-
I'm starting to think allowing anyone to own pistols & military style weapons is an assult on my freedom.
I'll wait with interest to see what comes out about Jans Collectors license and what actions were taken once that lapsed.
-
I'm starting to think allowing anyone to own pistols & military style weapons is an assult on my freedom.
They're already pretty much illegal, except for "collectors" (which means an unhealthy obsession) and clubs (which tightly control them, and that's OK).
-
In response to Idiot Savant’s “Why, this is not America?”
In NZ drug dealers and manufacturers have drugs, lots of cash and weapons including guns.
If you are going to search a drug dealers house, a tinnie house, or P lab for that matter it would be wise to take guns with you.
-
Grant suggested that police have a policy of rescuing fallen comrades above anything else. That's pretty micro.
I did? Seems rather unlike something I would say. I did manage to say this, "'Making sure nobody else dies' should not extend privileges to the criminal. Police policy in this case will only embolden more criminals to attempt to "out do" the Napier episode."
and this, "When an officer has been shot and is lying in a driveway the first response should be to attend to him. If a criminal in a house is shooting at people who try to approach then the criminal should not be extended any right to life. Every attempt should be made to assist the fallen officer and the risk should be placed upon the life of the criminal (as much as possible)."
I did not suggest the police have any policy. I was responding to the claim that Russell suggested was the best policy. I see no reason to place the right to life of a criminal firing upon police and public over the slim chance that Constable Snee might have benefited from medical treatment.
If that is police policy then it is seriously misguided.
In a situation like this their policy response is cordon, control and contain. I think the main one there is always control - control over the scene and control over the offender. You have to know where he is and what he's doing.
He was in a house shooting at people. For over a day. You call that the police being "in control"?
There was obviously plenty of evidence that Molenaar went rampaging down the street shhoting at Constables Diver and Miller, and the civvy neighbour. That is a police officers worst nightmare. If he reacted like that to officers running from his property, then it was likely he would have done so again had an attempt been made to rescue Len Snee.
Then the AOS shoots him as soon as he reveals his position. Problem over. Or you'd prefer he just be left till his ammo runs out?
But as I mentioned above, the key word on policy and procedure is expected. Their are manuals written on how to investigate at the scene of a homicide, aggravated robbery, sexual assault - all situations where standard procedure can and should be carried out. But this scene in Napier was one out of the box. And police officers are highly trained to follow the only procedure they know when the unexpected occurs: cordon, contain and control.
Rubbish. The police are not prepared for the rescue, being unarmed. The AOS is and should be trained, one would expect, to deal with armed offenders .. that would make them being called an ARMED OFFENDERS Squad somewhat relevant... don't you think?
Sure it would have been heroic and made for a great Mark Sainsbury interview had an officer gone charging in and pulled Snee to safety. But unfortunately it would have been shocking police work.
Oh, dear God. Is this the best PA has to offer? Utter mischaracterisations and over-reactions to the most banal of comments? Have you guys never dealt with simple concepts before?
The police are not armed. They could never have achieved what I believe should have happened. The Armed Offenders Squad is trained and policy should reflect that training. In Napier the officer lying in the driveway, regardless of his condition, should have received priority attention. The perpetrator hindering his assistance should have paid with his life.
Surely you can see the common sense in that?
-
You're a doofus, Dexter - and it's revealed every time you open your whiny mouth and burp forth words like "simple" and "common" and offer up someone else's life as if you're Christ. Harrass some local sites in Taiwan why don't you, big guy.
-
Well done, Sacha. I believe if one more person denies the validity of what I say through the use of an insult and something that must be the local equivalent of humour you will have an airtight case.
-
A S,
I'm starting to think allowing anyone to own pistols & military style weapons is an assult on my freedom.
Just a minor definitional gripe, 'military style weapons'? Do you mean Islander's WWI .303? Do you mean my single shot Martini-Enfield from 1896? Both were military rifles. Do you mean every bolt action rifle in private hands in NZ, as the generally used design is based on a military rifle design?
If you're referring to the equally misunderstood 'assault weapon', do you mean a rifle firing an intermediate calibre round, with select fire capability, or do you mean a rifle that doesn't have a select fire ability but just looks scary? There are almost no 'assault weapons' in NZ, outside of an army barracks. The police have scary looking non-assault weapons, as do a tiny proportion of the NZ public.
The general media incompetence in understanding small but important distinctions also applies to firearms, perhaps more so due to the sensational nature of events involving them, but using their incorrect definitions doesn't help much in a rational discussion.
-
"Sure it would have been heroic and made for a great Mark Sainsbury interview had an officer gone charging in and pulled Snee to safety. But unfortunately it would have been shocking police work."
Oh, dear God. Is this the best PA has to offer?
Not really, Grant. Nick, who wrote that, isn't really a regular here, and he probably disagrees with most of what I write.
But he did spend six years as a frontline policeman.
-
Meanwhile, the Herald this morning sees occasion for a pissing contest:
Fact v Fiction
Details released by the police yesterday make it clear that the Weekend Herald's front-page report on Saturday was right.
Despite widespread claims in other media on Saturday morning that we were wrong and Jan Molenaar was still alive, it is clear that he died on Friday afternoon.
His last communications with his partner and brother were just after 1pm, and a single gunshot was heard at 1.28pm.
From that time there was no further sign of life from the house through phone contact or shooting. As the Herald correctly reported, the police believed him to be dead.
-
it's my duty as a citizen of Jeremy's utopian society to dob you in to the appropriate authorities forthwith :P
Oh, cool , a utopian society named after me.
-
Do you mean my single shot Martini-Enfield from 1896?
Is that shaken or stirred? 1896 ...must have a good head by now.
-
His friends seem oddly blithe about him tipping into a homicidal rage because someone came to his house.
Sure, I just can't get my head around why a guy who lives half a century suddenly unleashes that rage.I would have thought age would have bought some control but of course I'm going off limited information.It's just bloody sad.
and Matthew I see your arguement that gun registries are historically poor but I am always open to the ideas of this years policy wonks. hell, why not?
-
The headline in Saturday's Herald was "GUNMAN DEAD", even though the same article reported: "Police last night believed the Napier gunman to be dead"
So the police didn't know but the Herald did. Did they have a man on the inside?
-
Good to hear Philip Alpers back in the debate about gun control (he is on Nine To Noon this morning). I had wondered what had happened to him.
I do think attitudes to gun ownership and use have changed. One of the most useless 'skills' I acquired at secondary school in South Taranaki, was how to strip down and reassemble a Bren gun. I can probably could still do this, if I wanted to. I recall, in horror, memories of spotty 15 year olds firing live rounds with a Bren gun, in the name of 'education'!
-
But he did spend six years as a frontline policeman.
Yeah, but Grant's seen Die Hard, like, six times . And he's got a copy of Beverly Hills Cop that his big brother pirated for him from a mate. The audio's not very good though, so it's a bit difficult to hear what they're saying. Judge Reinhold is really really funny in it though!
-
In response to this incident a lot of people are calling for gun laws to be reviewed (including on this thread). This happens every time there is a significant incident such as this one. But I wonder how useful a review would be. If we accept that people in society should have a right to have guns in some circumstances, we also have to accept that on occasion guns will fall into the wrong hands.
I don't see any easy legislative fix. We can tamper with gun laws if it will make people feel like something is being done. But unless we ban all guns (and I'm not advocating that) we'll always have people with guns shooting other people.
I don't like to criticise the police, but in hindsight they should perhaps have devoted more resources to finding out what happened to the guns held by people who didn't register when the gun laws were changed in the 1990s. I wonder if it's too late to do this now. This is a potential example of where enforcing the existing laws might be a better option than rushing to pass new ones.
-
>quote>Sure, I just can't get my head around why a guy who lives half a century suddenly unleashes that rage.I would have thought age would have bought some control but of course I'm going off limited information.It's just bloody sad.</quote>
Age does not confer wisdom or restraint. There are so many examples of this around at the moment just take your pick.
In some people thru life a disconnect can occur and fester over many years.
Us humans have become experts at pretending, or is that civilisation.I dread to think it but there are a lot of people who suffer from similar problems as Jay Molenaar or Molenburg as some of those really clever on air wits are calling him.
Individuation has become virtually an enemy of the collectivism that dictates how we all live together as populations grow. It is just going to get worse. Is it purely a numerical thing and should be treated as such, a certain percentage of the population will go off the rails, and will be dealt with accordingly.
Or can people who show signs of a growing disconnect be coaxed back to something like normalcy. Well in NZ at present it is the former, which I find sadder. -
Scotty .................. never mind the tone of my post. The message which still seems to be Unthinkable to most in this thread is that our drug laws ( or cannabis laws in this instance ) have gone a long way towards the actions that jan moeller took, the persecution complex he had and the anger which obviously burned within him.
IF he was a dealer/grower then his arsenal was most likely collected for the home invasion/rip off situation which happen ALL TO OFTEN in the black market drug scene.
It is very common for gang prospects ( and especially the mongrel mob ones ) to be given the task of stealing/standing over cannabis dealers. ..................... and for a long time in NZ the police had a 'look the other way ' response to home invasions against 'drug dealers', in other words the police encouraged home invasions against certain sectors of society ..........
Jan Moeller "flash reacted" to the presence of police in HIS home and it most certainly was related to the cannabis bust they were conducting against him.
We have yet to see the scale of Jans cannabis business but if he had a grow in his garage then under our cannabis laws he stood to have his house confiscated.
How do people know in this thread that the police doing their routine 'lets fuck up the life of a cannabis dealer/grower' were not gloating at him and letting him know he was in a heap of shit and would have his house taken of him ?????. How does anyone know the cops were not acting like arseholes ?????
How do people know that Jan had not been dabbling with cannabis for years and so had been viewing the police amongst his enemys for years and years.
Once more I say that those who are not releating what happened in Napier with our drug laws are the ones who are divorced from reality.
Also earlier in this thread Russell said that Jan shot the police "in cold blood" , I disagree, he did it in red hot enraged blood. He did not coldly climb a watch tower and start killing people.
This was a prohibition crime, prohibition made the man, created the scene and gave us this result.
……………. And I wont pretend otherwise
-
But would it stop it from happening in future?
That's the chief benefit - allowing proper policing of whether those whose licenses lapse or are disqualified have disposed of all their toys.
Of course it won't stop it happening in future. At least one of the firearms used by Molenaar is already a restricted weapon, requiring registration, tougher-than-usual security, and a thorough vetting by the police before the appropriate endorsement will be permitted. Clearly that didn't do a thing to stop what happened, despite being everything that the pro-registry crowd want. What would a future registry achieve that the present system couldn't? Other than to waste gobs of taxpayer money so that Alpers can finally STFU and the pollies can point to how they're "getting tough on crime".
All the firearms law in the world won't stop someone who's determined to keep hold of restricted weapons. Criminals, by definition, break the law. I know that may be a shocking concept to you, it certainly seems to have escaped quite a large cross-section of society, but it's how it is. Registries only work to police people who have good intent. They provide nothing useful against a person who wants to acquire a firearm for nefarious purposes, and in that lies the reason for them being a total waste of money.
-
Have you guys never dealt with simple concepts before?
The police are not armed. They could never have achieved what I believe should have happened. The Armed Offenders Squad is trained and policy should reflect that training.
The AOS are well-equipped, but contrary to what's in the movies, their bulletproof garments don't just allow them to creep up under fire, with military-grade bullets fired from close range bouncing off them like Iron Man.
Molenaar had powerful weapons, was rather good at using them, and was also quite good at concealing himself. Alas, not as keen to obligingly reveal his position as your 'commonsense' fantasy requires.
You've only really offered one idea in all your posts on this thread - that the AOS needed to man up and shoot the guy (so simple!) rather than getting into a PC criminal-coddling lather about it. You really, really want this to be true, even to the point of handwaving away actual police officers' knowledge about the best way to handle these incidents.
Suggest you exercise some real common sense and recognise your own ignorance on this subject, rather than inflicting said ignorance again and again on the rest of us.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.