In Defence of Jan Molenaar [updated]

I haven’t yet said anything about the recent events in Napier. The whole thing is tragic, and it’s difficult for me to voice what are bound to be unpopular opinions. I’ll do so anyway. For foreign readers, here’s what happened: cops raid house for marijuana, Jan Molenaar shoots and kills Senior Constable Len Snee, Molenaar holes up in house for a couple of days before killing himself.

First, Len Snee’s death is a genuine tragedy. He was just doing his job, and he likely thought his job was just and reasonable. Some have rightly pointed out that Snee is a victim of the war on drugs. There have, however, been few tears shed for the other victim in all this: the gunman Jan Molenaar. If you think that a person should be entitled to consume whatever recreational substances they please, and also trade in those substances, it’s not clear that Molenaar did anything wrong. He certainly did something foolish and possibly downright crazy, but did he do anything wrong?*

What’s the moral difference between a group of religious zealots breaking into my house, kidnapping me, and putting me on trial for blasphemy (I like to convince children that Jesus was a zombie); and the cops breaking into Molenaar’s house, arresting him, and putting him on trial for possession of cannabis? The only difference is the sanction of the democratic process. I don’t find this a strong justification for obviously unjust acts.

Would I be morally permitted to use deadly force to avoid being kidnapped? I think I would. Should this be different when a democratically elected government does the kidnapping? I don’t think it does when the law is obviously unjust. Would it be reasonable for a Jew to kill a Nazi or two to avoid being taken to Auschwitz?** If you think cannabis prohibition is illegitimate, why should Jan Molenaar not be entitled to protect himself?

There’s proportionality, of course, but if Molenaar was supplying marijuana and had illegal firearms, it seems likely that he would have spent time behind bars. If a kidnapper tries to lock me up for six months, I’m not going to feel bad about killing him to try to escape. There’s also the fact that the cop might be a good person, and just doing his job. This may be true in general, but he is committing an unjust act. Suppose non-government kidnappers hire security guards to watch me as I await trial for blasphemy. Does this make any moral difference to whether I am morally entitled to kill them in order to escape?

The rush to suppose that Molenaar would have done something wrong sooner or later and would have killed a cop anyway strikes me as presumptuous and thoroughly illiberal. Sure, he’s obviously a paranoid protector of his own property. There doesn’t seem to be any indication that he was willing to use violence against anyone not entering his home without permission, however. Liberal governments don’t punish people because they seem like the sort of person who might do something bad down the road.

My instinctive reaction is to blame Molenaar for the whole thing. I’ve been brought up in a culture which respects government and police authority, and urges people to obey, or at least accept, the rules even when they disagree with them. I think this gut-reaction is wrong-headed. Molenaar didn’t sign any social contract and obviously didn’t see the police’s interference in his dealings as legitimate.

I’m reminded of this quote from Joseph Gusfield:

Norms become legitimate when the actors view them as right, proper, and appropriate. Temperance norms are legitimate to the members of the Temperance movement. To many nonabstainers they may be illegitimate. Domination rests on the power, prestige, authority of one person, group, or official over another. The content of the norm may be disapproved but, as in the case of the duelers, the nonbeliever recognizes its force. The individual may accept a given authority as legitimate even though a specific norm enunciated by that authority represents domination, that is, is not morally approved of by the subordinate. An institution may be dominated by norms which some group or person does not share. For example, the norms of patriotic commitment are dominant in the school system. Patriotic rites are performed and patriotism is taught as a revered and appropriate set of attitudes. Patriotism is dominant in American schools. The nonpatriot may disapprove of this; he may organize to influence changes; he may even withdraw his child from the school. One thing he cannot sanely do. He cannot act as if his norms were binding in the schools. A system of domination may rest upon legitimacy in some areas of the society but not in others. What is essential to the fact of orderly and recurrent behavior is the recognition in all areas that one set of norms and not its alternative is likely to prevail. It is not a question of whose ox is gored but of who holds the plow.

Drug prohibition is utterly absurd, but we cannot sanely act as if drugs are permitted – i.e. as if the government does not have authority over our lives. Jan Molenaar was insane in this respect, but I don’t hold that against him. He didn’t deserve to be put in the situation where he felt he had to kill a cop to defend his property. It’s sad that so many people, especially cops, will go along with marijuana prohibition when they recognise how absurd and destructive it is.

Update: Blair Mulholland makes a similar point. Well worth a read.

*To be clear, were I in Molenaar’s position I would not take the actions he did. I don’t see government authority as legitimate, but I realise how futile and destructive any attempt to fight it with guns must be. Please don’t arrest me; I am not a terrorist threat.

**No, I’m not equating prohibition with the holocaust. The holocaust was obviously far worse. Both, though, are unjust policies which persecuted a minority and were implemented by a regime deemed legitimate by most citizens.

46 Responses

  1. Good on you for saying it. As you say, not likely to be a popular view. I for one have some sympathy for the views you put up here. At what point is law unjust and rightly resisted? I’m not sure I even have a framework for thinking about that question.

  2. I agree, he was 51 years old and had lived 21 years in the same house without any issues and despite his intense personality had stayed out of any real trouble. So what he smoked a bit of pot in his own home. He still kept to himself knowing what he could handle from people and what he could not. He’s probably done quite well in keeping himself out of trouble over the years considering. They should have just left him alone or at the least approached him in the correct way since they knew what he could be like. (Invading a persons home when you know that they are not going to be there is wrong.) This is a real tragety for all concerned over such a small offence. Two lives lost for nothing and families on both sides suffering. It’s a shame our police have to enforce such laws when there is so much more worse stuff out there than growing/smoking a bit of pot in your own home.
    He just wanted to be left alone.
    I believe Jan did regret what transpired and would change things if he could.
    My condolences to everyone concerned on both sides.

  3. I think you have voiced this more articulately than most.

    I’ve been trying to explain my point of view to myself, and to a few others, but couldn’t explain it in a way I felt comfortable with, without soundlike like I agreed with Jan’s cause of action.

  4. So if you do something I disagree with, is it okay for me to run down the street shooting you as you try to crawl away, and then spray bullets at anybody trying to help you?

    • No, I wouldn’t think it okay for you to spray bullets at anyone trying to help me, regardless of what I’d done.

      Whether I think it’s okay for you to shoot me if I do something you disagree with, it depends on whether that thing is me breaking into your house and trying to put you in a cage for the next six months of your life (supposing that you haven’t done anything a reasonable person would consider a crime).

      If I ever do anything like that, I’ll accept whatever action you deem reasonable, shooting included.

  5. Very poor! To leave a shot officer where he lay for 32 hours is unforgivable. This, although a record, is not the first time. The message for every police officer in NZ or citizen for that matter is that if you are shot you will be left where you lie dead or alive.

    This shows a total disrespect for life and must have a negative affect on morale and job performance. This siege was ended by the gunman not the police. We should remember that the act of getting shot is not in itself an act of bravery. The shot civilian is of course another matter. Current reports of heroic actions by responding officers after the fact did not seem in evidence during the siege.

  6. IMO (but what do I know?)

    Jan’s response, for someone like Jan, was the only response. He could not, would not be kidnapped (as the above puts so aptly) and incarcerated. The facts are that Chaucer Road was peaceful and quiet before the police showed up. It is a disturbing thought that peace reigns and all’s at right until the police are present. Why waste so much resource on ‘capturing’ plants? And then ruining the lives of their owners? I used to live in Napier. I had occasion to call the police because of prowlers (two large males roaming around the property late at night – at least as far as we could see from behind the curtains with the lights off) on one occasion, and stolen property on another – on these occasions not only did NO police ever knock on my door, we never even got a return phone call. And yet there are three policemen breaking and entering a peaceful home to put a guy away where there is no threat and no disturbance – no one’s property being disturbed and no one’s person under threat or personal rights being abused. As soon as I heard this I knew no one else (except, sadly, Jan) would be hurt after the initial violent altercation. He simply wanted to protect his freedom. And as for Jan’s ‘arsenal’ pictured on the news – the average American would think it nothing more than an enthusiast’s small collection.

    I have a suspician that the ‘war on drugs’ is an important spin in keeping a large police budget alive. But I have to ask, where were the police the night there were prowlers around my house? And when my garage had been broken into and property stolen? What IS actually important to police? I don’t know.

  7. I would dare say the single biggest flaw in this argument is that you presume it to be reasonable and morally permisable to commit violence against another, given reason. Is any reason enough? Reason can be flawed and death is terminal. Can it be justified? In my opinion no. Also Jan may not have signed a ‘social contract’ but the very fact he survived 51 years without previously having to act the way he did provides some indication for an acceptance of norms. You can’t pick and choose and act like he did otherwise this would be an everyday occurence. If you stick to the argument of not buying into the social norms and being able to do as you please, then what about the P dealers in this country. Jan was apparently vehmently opposed to the drug. Is it not double standards if Marijuana freedom of expression but P is not?

    • I am against the prohibition of any recreational substance, P included. If Molenaar was in favour of P prohibition but saw marijuana prohibition as a violation of his rights, he would indeed be a bit hypocritical. I have no idea what was going through his mind and wouldn’t like to speculate.

      You’re absolutely right that it’s not clear precisely where to draw the line when it comes to resisting authority with violence. I don’t think anyone these days would say German Jews were in the wrong when they resisted being sent to concentration camps with whatever means they had at their disposal. I see being arrested for growing pot as also being on the justifiable resistance side of the line.

      We all have to live together, and there are bound to be political disagreements. I don’t think just anything I deem as an illegitimate intrusion into my life would justify defending myself with force. There are certain things which are reasonable candidates for collective decision-making: those things where your actions have a strong effect on nonconsenting others’ wellbeing.

      I think, for example, that vehicle warrant of fitness requirements are too stringent. I recognize, though, that vehicle safety on public roads is a valid object of collective choice and would not be within my rights to treat a cop condemning my car in the same way I would treat someone stealing it.

      The majority telling me what drugs I can and can’t use is tyranny. We routinely lock people up for hobbies which don’t harm anyone else in any meaningful way. Yes, some people foolishly overindulge and this has psychological costs to their friends and family. People take a lot of things too far. That’s no reason to lock them up.

      • So basically you’ve just drawn a parallel between growing pot and genocide. Hmmm… I would say the extinction of an entire race is a different matter entirely to a relatively short term punishment for growing pot in an environment where the possibility exists to change the law surrounding its use. Violence is never the right way to approach an issue.

        I can understand your argument that drugs are a self-harm situation so let people be free to make their own choices. However, I disagree it is a selfr harm situation as I believe the harm, whether directly or indirectly, goes beyond the individual itself and therefore becomes a community problem. Its no longer an issue of just your rights and freedoms, its the surrounding community of individuals rights and freedoms to be free from the impact of your actions too. The Community decided that banning a substance would create less harm in society than permitting its use. Whether or not society has chosen to restrict the use of the drugs that should be restricted or the ones that shouldn’t is irrelevant to the principle. You cannot survive on society without making sacrifices of your own personal rights. Your right to use drugs falls within this category. You can debate and try to prove your argument that something is permissable but it is irrational to believe that all things are permissable. This would lead to anarchy. The impact of your actions goes far beyond your immediate being. Sure you can argue that alcohol should be banned and marijuana shouldn’t. The very fact that such a large proportion of the community use marijuana without large harm or even the knowledge of their surrounding community indicates that it shouldn’t be. However, you also have to consider that perhaps it’s current status as prohibited limits its use somewhat and presents it in a more favourable light i.e. generally used in privacy, by people who have experience with it etc. Also is the current situation surrounding its status really that bad that its worth killing over? Sure some people have their lives affected through convictions etc but the vast majority of users are largely unaffected and I would say this is why the lobby for legalisation is weak as it does not have conviction behind the support for its legalisation.

      • Yes, I’m drawing a parallel. See my note in the original post: “No, I’m not equating prohibition with the holocaust. The holocaust was obviously far worse. Both, though, are unjust policies which persecuted a minority and were implemented by a regime deemed legitimate by most citizens.”

        Coercively stopping someone from growing and smoking pot is morally wrong. As is exterminating an entire race. The latter is clearly much worse than the former, but both are wrong and neither becomes right because an electoral majority says so.

        I was trying to put the Jew killing a Nazi at one end of a spectrum: a case where it is obviously permissible to resist state authority with violence. There are some cases where it is obviously not permissible, like the Warrant of Fitness example. I’m saying that I think drug laws fall on the morally permissible side of the line. As ben points out above, it’s a hard problem to think about.

        I don’t want to get into a general debate about drug prohibition, but I’m not sure what these supposed social costs pot is meant to impose. Everything we do affects others to some degree, but I don’t see anything particularly externalitygenic about marijuana, or any popular recreational drug for that matter (n.b: black markets have social costs. That’s prohibition’s fault, not pot’s.) Prohibition is the result of puritanical bigotry, pure and simple.

        To be clear, I’m not advocating a violent overthrow of the government. That would be plain stupid. I think what Molenaar initially did (i.e. shooting intruders wishing to lock him up, not shooting at people attempting to help the wounded) was foolish, but not morally reprehensible.

        Every person who likes to smoke pot is affected by prohibition to some degree. Prices are higher, quality lower, transaction costs hugely inflated. You’re right that most people aren’t affected to the same degree as someone being locked up. But the fact that others have gotten off lighter doesn’t mean that those who are affected more heavily don’t have a right to defend themselves.

  8. The reason this all came about is unbelievable, a quiet man in a quiet street thats part of a quiet neighbourhood wanted to grow a bit and smoke a bit, thats all, HE WAS HURTING NOBODY.
    Was it all worth it – no.
    Unfortunately police have to enforce a crazy law instead of going after real criminals, sadly they end up creating one – for nothing/over nothing.
    Jan Molenaar was just as much a victim but of our countries rules and regulations.
    It does make you wonder why some of these exist – for profit?
    Probably.
    The police I’m sure would rather have their time freed up to concentrate on the way more serious issues than who’s doing what in their own home not harming anyone or creating any trouble.
    Jan Molenaar should have lived a lot longer in the peace, quiet and privacy he wanted.
    Officer Snee should have spent his career catching real criminals (with different laws)which I’m sure would have been his preference.
    What a total waste.
    What a crying shame.

  9. Ok guys, I understand where you’re coming from here, and I too feel awful for all involved, including the gunman himself, who, according to reports, sounded very much as if he felt trapped and forced to kill himself once he came down from rampage mode and realised what he had done. But at the end of the day, Jan was a hypocrite. He hated drugs and was working with police to help fight against the gang who sold drugs (P) to his brother. But he could not equate this with his own selling of cannabis. While I accept that in many cases, recreational consumption of cannabis may NOT lead to harder drug use or other damage, I have also personally witnessed at least 6 people, including my sister, flatmates, a friend, a workmate and a boyfriend of mine, none of whom originally did much more than the occasional bit of pot, descend rapidly and in a couple of cases irremidiably into serious drug addiction. I have witnessed 3 serious overdoses resulting from combinations of drugs, cocktails which began with a little pot and then a little of this, a little of that, and “OMG don’t call an ambulance or we’ll all get busted, he’ll be ok…”
    My sister still battles her drug addiction now. She got into heroin through smoking pot with frined to try to look cool. The friend I mentioned was hospitalised (actually, institutionalised) and will never, mentally, recover his stability. The flatmates have drfited out of my social circle but were certainly on the way down. So personally, I do not believe in legalising drugs.

    Nor, for that matter, do I think arming our police as a routine practise would help. We have the AOS, that’s what they’re for, but for a routine search with warrant for the house of a man known to police, who had a long history of working with them and had not shown any signs of going postal, it would have potentially caused the situation to escalate even further. Snr Contable Snee and his men did the best they could. THere ia also a suggestion that Jan was using steroids (just look at the pictures of him). Anyone heard of ‘roid rage? Irrantional overreactions to mundane, everyday events? Sound familiar?

    • Cat19,

      Jan had a deal to grow cannabis to limit the markets and funds available to the mob through their cannabis growth to fund further weapons, chemical drugs and other gang arsenal.
      Jan Didnt do steriods for time, he enjoyed a few brews sometimes and someone on steroids cannot drink due to liver failure increasing highly.
      I myself grow pot, twice a year for personal use, and to my knowledge it seems that if u can prove it is for personal use the courts actually take this pretty lightlyas it stops me and other who will smoke it anyway (for medicinal use or whatever), i got caught once – lost my plants and got a $300aud fine, and recieved my equipment back. people who use cannabis should grow it themselves as its safe, fun and most of all stops people from buying it off the black market (hence taking the market away) and sponsoring the nastier people of society.

  10. a school bully

    he pumped himself up with weights and steroids, but didn’t drink, smoke, or do drugs.

  11. Jan didn’t do drugs. He just sold them. So he doesn’t really fit into your ‘legalise it and let the bloke smoke up in peace’ theory.He did ‘roids, guns and bullying weaker people, and when faced with people in a position of authority, went apeshit with the arsenal he had planted in his fortress of a house – what in case of the end of the world? Too much Terminator?

    • If by weaker people you mean the Mongrel Mob then I would consider him pretty brave taking them on practically single handed.
      Perhaps you might feel different if the mob moved next door to you.
      And most of us never knew Jan to know what he was into but there are a lot of people out there with collections in their homes that the neighbourhood would never know about. I have met people in the medieval club with weapons like you wouldn’t believe – should that be banned just in case?
      The police knew who and what Jan was so why?
      Is that how our ‘people in authority’ handle things?
      They should have known better and there would probably be two people still alive.

      • “They should have known better and there would probably be two people still alive.”

        Don’t be absurd, stop hiding from the truth. What you write is like saying the Jews were to blame for the Holocaust because they had no right to be in Germany in the first place.

        The fact is that if Molenaar had not taken deliberate aim at four unarmed men with a rifle and pulled the trigger there would be two people alive. He’s the one who should have known better, for God’s sake!.

        What the cops did at Molenaar’s was no different to what they do all around the country 24/7, year in, year out.

        Unfortunately, this time, instead of a rational response they met a clown armed to the eyeballs and so full of his own pathetic tough-guy image that he felt compelled to live up to it. Absolute idiocy.

        And don’t blame the police for coming knocking at his door. He got himself into the mess in the first place through having an illegal drug. Cause and effect; he grew it, they came.

        If you dabble in that crap, you’ve got to be prepared to face up to the consequences if you’re discovered. A real man would have said “okay, guv, it’s a fair cop”, not throw the mother of all hissy fits and try to take out every living thing on your street as this guy attempted to do.

        Try to disguise it any way you want; blame the drug laws, blame the policing of those laws, blame the cops, but the fact is the only one who killed anybody is Molenaar.

        He’s the one who picked up a gun and used it on four defenceless men without regard to them or their families, and he’s the one who took the coward’s way out by putting a bullet through his head to avoid facing up to the outrageous, senseless, stupid, selfish, gutless crime he had committed.

        And someone who knew him thought he was a legend? Excuse me while I fall over laughing.

      • In response to no 18 (theres no reply to click) there’s no comparison between the Germans and Jews and its absurd for you to make a connection at all let alone accuse anyone else of it.

        It is the polices responsiblity to approach a situation in the appropriate way – not the same thing for everyone – assess the people you are dealing with is that not basic training? Have you noticed that we are all different?
        They knew exectly what Jan was and therefore should have approached him accordingly. (Like they have done in the past, not wait until he’s not home.)

        Yes everyone has to take resposiblity for their actions and Jan did – It would be a brave decision in taking his own life (not an easy decision) and it was a sign of remorse and regret.

        His friends,family have every right to call him a legend they knew him better than anyone, Jan did a lot of good for people as well – one thing being combating the distribution of heavier drugs, looking at the funeral on T.V he certainly could not have had all that support and sorrow if he was all bad – don’t be so narrow minded that what happened in the end was all that Jan was.

        No one is saying the shooting was a good option to take.
        He will be missed as much by the people that loved him as the policeman will be missed by the people that loved him.

  12. I hear what your saying but everyone is different, some have a more addictive personality than others. (No matter what their drug of choice to start with is, which might even be alcohol.)
    I would like to see a law passed that a person can say grow a maximum of three plants in a house. Not great plantations.
    Then our police force is not wasting time on small time people like Jan and just need to deal with the big time people like the gangs.
    Some drugs are more harmful than others, and as expessed earlier in No 9 theres always going to be people who overindulge no matter what their doing.
    I would say at 51 Jans “roid” days were probably when he was a lot younger and he felt good just taking his dog for a walk in the morning and relaxing with a smoke at home or with a friend, filling in his days doing whatever kept him on an even keel.
    I would also say there are a few people out there collecting things that would make others hair curl, are we going to stop all hobbies that might be used to cause harm to others? Anyone could break at any moment and they don’t need to be a collecter of whatever to cause the same amount of damage.
    Jan I feel would not have broken if left to live his life his way which at the end of the day all things considered was pretty reclusive with his partner, close friends and family.

  13. I gotta say something here as some comments are ludicrous.

    The fact Jan grew pot served a very good number of reasons.
    Jan was pretty much at war with the mob, im not saying how but i knew him personally. He was a “one man army” but liked the armed services of our nations, he was there to protect himself, his neighbourhood and the general areas well being.
    The main reason to his cultivation of cannabis was not to make money or even to smoke it, but to take the black market away from teh mob there who would rely heavily on marijuana sales to fund their more serious drugs, weapons and gang operations.
    I know for a fact that If it wasnt for Jan that Napier would be a lot more over run with the mob and pcp labs would be a lot more common. A good example is when the mob moved into his street. they broke into houses and caused general problems(daling etc) but this was taken care of by Jan and the mob soon left not to return. I doubt anyone even knew of this. He never booby trapped his place to intent on harming police. Unfortunatly he was a very complex person, and the police were well aware of this and the fact they went into his property knowing he wasnt there was an extremely stupid “mistake” (I think personally they did it to stir Jan up, ultimatly resaulting in a very tragic situation). RIP Jan Molenaar, you were a legend and its very sad to have seen it end like this.

    • All I have to say to this post is if he was there to protect his neighbours why are police saying that he would’ve been charged with 21 counts of attempted murder had he lived? There are strong indicators to show he shot at his neighbours… So whatever his reasons for growing pot, the guy was NOT normal as some suggest and the real debate here is not pot, the police or guns but someone who didn’t know how to deal with anger and act appropriately to a situation.

      • I can tell u right now that Jan could easily have shot more neighbours and bystanders if he so desired. he could have shot the police at the bottom of the road if he wanted to. He can shoot a heart through a dime.
        The reason why he didnt is because Jan knew and regretted what he did wrong, knew that jail wasnt an option and took his own life before harming any others, as with his tempered rifle bursts he knew too that although showed the public his anger, that he didnt want to clean any innocents up. From what I understand he could have engaged those LAV’s if he wanted with some of his arsenal but he didnt. this shows he still contained sorrow for his actions. He is the type of guy who would think about how the Snee family would feel and be affected which may also ultimatly have lead to Jan’s suicide, this is not the thoughtline of a sociopath.
        If he wanted to he could have blown his house to bits and caused a lot more carnage, but unfortunatly his temper and lack of respect from the officers for his property got him in the end, they just should have waited for him to be home he most likely would have shown them through:-( I know he regretted the whole situation and unfortunatly knew he had gone too a point of no return in his mind hance was not coming out. Very sad.

  14. Also Jan did not take any drugs recently, last time he had drugs was approx 5 years back when he took a cycle of steroids to boost his stregnth. No Meth, No Weed, hardly a drink and a nice cup of tea was Jan’s policy. Jan lived to help erradicate meth.

  15. Thankx for keeping us on the right track,
    Most people on this blog would not have known Jan personally.
    All I know is that this all seems such a very wrong thing to have happened to Jan (complex as he was) and Napier has lost one of its defenders of the greater evils.
    Napier police have probably helped the gangs get a stronger foothold.
    There’d be a lot more to it all than we’ll ever know with why they chose to do what they did.
    Jan was a legend in his own way and I am really very sad this has happened.
    I don’t know why this has affected me so much since I never knew him but it just has.
    R.I.P Jan Molenaar

  16. The news is only reporting one side of this complex story, I read that the Independent Police Conduct Authority will not hold an enquiry into police actions – due to lack of public interest.
    What a load of rubbish, I would like an inquiry as to how this came about.
    What the police did to provoke someone of Jans nature into such an act.
    Obviously not such an Independant Authority after all.
    Yet another big white wash of the facts.

  17. Quite unbelievable. You justify the killing of a police officer by “self-defense”?

  18. What we have is the act of ‘Policing’ a policy fraught with issues leading to inevitable deviancy amplification. Napier is but one example where the interactive context of where the rule breaking occurs ramps up the unintended consequences.

    It is not in the Police’s interest to be so objective and introspective of policy. So they wont go there. What ever the Police determine ‘as the cause’ is subjectively flawed by the paradigm in which they operate; seemingly oblivious to the harms occuring under prohibitions watch.

    The more dangerous a drug is, the more culpable a government for abrogating control to criminal networks, maximising social harm, misplacing resources and deluding themselves and everyone else.

    see http://mildgreens.blogspot.com/2009/05/big-meth-con-menace-or-moral-panic.html

  19. There is no defence for what he did. He shot four unarmed men, apparently in the back, and riddled the homes of defenceless people in his street. Legend? Yeah, right.

  20. >There is no defence for what he did.

    And there is no defence to collective ignorance as to what precipitated this event (and thus awakening the sleeping dog.)

    Society is a collection of diversity… avoidance of the tough questions here only assures that the systemic problem remains both systemic and chronic. Who would wish that? What has happened, happened… but it did not happen in a vacuum.

    The story of Mr Asia is not the story of Terry Clark, it much, much larger. Terry Clark and all that it lead too was a both a product of a policy (the war on some drugs) and human frailties, weaknesses and a justice system that educated him – ironically on Hospital Hill. (he featured in the Napier Prison Muster… on minor charges!, that is where he learned there was much more money to made in drugs than ‘mere cannabis’…. )

    And while in this case it may take time to get to both the nub of whats broken and for a public buy-in to that story, it is nonetheless stupid to isolate this tragedy down to ‘he was mad’ fait accompli – look no further!

    There is much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands to be done yet!

  21. Jans partner being charged, has it all not been bad enough for her?

    • Are you serious, i didnt know this? Poor Delwyn as if she hasnt suffered enough already. She was hassled by police racially before the incident which is partly on my mind to as why Jan carried out his actions.

    • lol yeah jan did kill len and why because he enter the man home well he was away.yes he was a policemen doing his job but he was also a cop that picked on others too..i remember len knocking on my door 0300 in the morning asking if i had a stolen car cause i knew the guy they were after who the hell does that shit.as for jan i worked with him for years on the rail as i trained him on the job and we also workout at the gym now and then.as for him on anything i never seen anything at all..he was a great man and i always had time for him two people die over what a joint.lol the law suck in new zealand .hey they cant get jan for it so take it out on the wife thats bout right

  22. Bad timing Mr Plod. This on the day the UN report on NZ Human Rights identifies systemic failing with disproportionate incarceration of women. And they, Police, pretend they dont understand ‘deviancy amplification’. Good at exagerating harms… but brain dead when it comes to crime prevention prefering an injustice industry.

    Look at the charges fur’cris’ake!

    Earlier in the day I wrote, not knowing the UN report would damn NZ’s tazer (and other coercive) introduction, while highlighting that the law [Police] targets maori, male and unemployed. see New Scientist: Cannabis Kamatua Needed.

    http://mildgreens.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-scientist-cannabis-kamatua-needed.html

  23. The May 21st reveiw on what the police say happened and is their final conclusion (Yahoo news) sounds crazy in itself.
    Total denial.
    Blaming friends and family as well, accepting no responsiblity themselves.
    Good on Delwyns family and friends sounds like they are really there for her, I hope she stays strong. Jan will be looking down keeping an eye on things.

  24. As time removes the imperative of the police spin from the situation, to support police culpability in the first, will become more acceptable. Just remembering the Senior officer for the police giving most of the media interviews, he did not look arrogant or unimpeachably confident. Jan defended himself that Thursday against intruders (and yes, he did have a relationship with the police which was surely betrayed that morning). These people were there to threaten his sovereignty and lifestyle which was not impinging upon anyone else’s. Two hundred years ago no one would consider a free individual protecting his own with mortal force anything untoward. The fact that we are ‘grappling’ with this predicament now, shows that, as human beings, our instinctual approach, is the same as Jan’s. Our post-modern police spun shrouded response is what flips us into a tail spin. It really is wanton naivete that automatically equates authority with goodness. Jan did not breach any of the homes, persons or sovereignty of those three officers that day – they breached his, and, for this utter lack of wisdom, aside from the banal black and white ‘motivation’ of an impersonal system of ‘law’, this action has caused tragedy for both ‘sides’. Anyone who knew Jan would have known that after the initial altercation, Jan would be the last one to suffer. For the police to dare to try to sell a ‘rampage’ mortally endangering his neighbours following their initial intrusion is disingenuous and is calling upon an ignorant public to exonerate them. His neighbours know better.

    R.I.P. Jan.

  25. Let Delwyn stay in the house Molenaar family ,then when she is ready to move it can be divided between her and Jans son. In the meantime property values will go up and Delwyn can stay where she was closest to Jan until ready.
    You don’t need to divide straight away, at the worst Delwyn try to decide on an amount and pay them out if you can. I’m sure with the right help and good advice you will be able to stay.
    I don’t blame you at all for wanting to be in the home you both had together, I would feel the same way.
    Good luck.

  26. hey there.i agree that jan was most certainly another victim,but for somewhat different reasons.napier is a prodomonantly mongrel mob town,so likewise with all the local jails.as the newspapers said,jan was a vocal anti P crusader,and shared no love with the local mob.we must ask:was the reason that this man was so heavily armed -for an expected search warrant,or just maybe it was to protect himself and loved ones from the mob???this theory carries on to his reaction to the search warrant.if he was in fact a mongrel mob target,then the only thing keeping him safe on the outside are his collegues and his awesome arsenal.he must have been somewhat of a stalemate for a target..until the day he goes to jail.where there are no guns,and the odds arent great to say the least.this fear/reaction may have been what it took to send him over the edge.thinking that if he goes inside for the dope stuff he was a dead man.not an excuse,rather a feasable insight into the mind of a ???????RIP Jan Molenaar

    • The mongrel – mob is made up off genetcally twisted negative in-breds who exagerrate their victim history, And are ex-treme in thier Voilence and sensuallity. They kan never be celibate.

  27. I agree with Adam that there are ‘factors’ that are unaccounted for in the current societal response to drug(s) that are evident in the Napier incident – if one wants to examine it. The problem with ‘drug related’ incidences is that Police and Media have no truck with ‘discovery’ and there are lot of people for whom ‘drugs are evil and a scourge’ that keep them, and us, boxed into the paradigm.

    What Adam has described is a function of the ‘deviancy amplification’ that creates a matrix of dysfunctional ‘set’ and ‘setting’. Prohibition of alcohol trade, [possession and consumption was never illegal] created the dangerous ‘set’ of violence, protection and corruption, none of which could be attributable to the pharmacology of ethyl alcohol.

    Napier is an example of such a set.

    Politicians see no votes in such ‘understandings’ thus rendering us all stupid!

    No drug is as dangerous as ‘set’ created by bad policy, bigotry and double standards.

    Show me a drug that can kill a Policeman at 100yds.

  28. [...] question, and one worthy of a detailed response from Dr. Anarchy and other philosophers and legal scholars who have had things to say about zombies in the past.The answer depends on the type of [...]

  29. lol yeah jan did kill len and why because he enter the man home well he was away.yes he was a policemen doing his job but he was also a cop that picked on others too..i remember len knocking on my door 0300 in the morning asking if i had a stolen car cause i knew the guy they were after who the hell does that shit.as for jan i worked with him for years on the rail as i trained him on the job and we also workout at the gym now and then.as for him on anything i never seen anything at all..he was a great man and i always had time for him two poeple die over what a joint

    • That fat Dutch pig in napier city @ – Willie, Who is Al-ways in the rag s,. Well He is an Fuckkin Bully And pickked a fight with me out- side Napier library,- A Total – Mastur batter,. only God kan save us from the hipporiticcal demmons. ?

  30. never trust the police,- they are liar s ,.- twistters, wanker s. And a lot off them git caught haveing sex with each other in the tax payers police cars ,. be-cause they are borred out off their mind s.

  31. I’m extremely gland i have found this page, it has put abit of closure on the events that happen during the siege and the publics view on jann.
    although the media portrayed jann as a loaner hot headed juice junky he was nothing of the sort he did have trust issues strong morels and a short temper but if you respected him and his home he would do the same for you. i believe this is partly why he took it upon himself to protected his neighbourhood from gangs such as the mob from taking over the beautiful neighbourhood he lived in. his house did have booby traps but these weren’ t meant for police they where to stop people from braking into his home e.g. nail strips on the deck hand rails/window seals and etc (this is before the events took place) i remember as a kid watching his surveillance camera when two members of the mob tried to rip the cameras out, which were well hidden meaning they had been around his property before and jann jumping up and running to the balcony telling them too “f@#k off and get the F@#k off my property”. So the paranoia was there only to be escalated many years later when the police started watching his home months before the siege. I cannot speak on the drugs part as i only knew of this after his death but i think drugs had played little part in what happen. i saw and still see him as a man who was protecting his property and the things he worked hard for. i don’t blame him for being extremely pissed when returning home to find people e.g the police snooping around his home while he was out but he defiantly went about getting them to leave the wrong way…nobody likes their things being touch or taken from under their feet

    thats all

    • And to the people saying if he was protecting his neighbours why did he shoot at them, nobody knows about what happens to the mind once you’ve killed someone in the circumstances of that day

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: