Talk:2009 Napier shootings
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 7, 2012, May 7, 2014, and May 7, 2017.|
- Not every dead police officer has an article about them... so why this guy? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I fully agree. I can think of a number of friends of mine that should have an article written about them since they were killed in the line of duty. And what about every law enforcement officer and firefighter that lost their life during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. They did things most people would not think about doing and running up burning buildings not thinking twice. If every one of these people are not added, then these people need to be removed. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This event is notable, there is substantial coverage on both major television networks, newspapers, radio, currently the lead story on the SMH in Australia. The BBC and the Washington Post both have articles on it. I can suggest renaming the article to the event, 2009 Napier police shootings. XLerate (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The article should cover the event not the person, who is otherwise not notable. The event is clearly notable, Senior Constable Snee would not be other than for his tragic death. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support this article should redirect to 2009 Napier police shootings, not the other way around. Mattlore (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support and suggest that as these events are still ongoing (and it is possible that a criminal trial could be a result of these events) that editors be circumspect in what they write.Daveosaurus (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the article should be renamed to reflect the incident, rather than one of the people involved. I would suggest 2009 Napier siege or 2009 Napier shootings.-gadfium 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Although Lenard Snee should remain, as section of the new article -- Danreilly123(talk) 09:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Moved. F (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Other police incidents with army support
- The NZ Herald had a good section about military involvement in New Zealand police operations - 
- "Every part of the Armed Forces that is assisting the Police... shall act at the request of the constable who is in charge of the operations in respect of the emergency,"
- Re other incidents, in New Zealand the Stanley Graham article says army involvement, and a Defence Force UH-1 Iroquois took a couple of STG members on a reconnaissance flight at the Aramoana massacre. Constable Glenn Arthur McKibben was also shot by a former soldier.
- The Dominion Post has an article as well: A first for use of army vehicles. XLerate (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:Death Assessment Commentary
The article was assessed as Start-class, for lack of Coverage and Accessibility, particularly for these two reasons:
- Coverage: "Molenaar continues to have supporters in Napier, particularly those impressed by his anti-gang stance"
- Did I miss something? What supporters? What anti-gang stance?
- Accessibility: 'his tangi at Ruahapia marae and funeral were well attended"
- His what at what-what?
The statement that "Molenaar, 51, was born of Ngāti Kahungunu extraction" will be very obscure to someone who is not from New Zealand. I suggest that this should be translated into standard English - such as "Molenaar, 51, was part Maori, descended from the Ngāti Kahungunu tribe".Royalcourtier (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The statement that "In the 1980s he spent six years in the territorial armoured corps of the Hawke's Bay and Wellington Regiment" cannot be correct. The Hawke's Bay and Wellington Regiment was an infantry unit, with artillery and other support elements. It had no "armoured corps" elements. Furthermore the correct wording would be "In the 1980s he spent six years in the army territorial force, serving in the Hawke's Bay and Wellington Regiment".Royalcourtier (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Duration of siege
The siege did not last 40 hours. It lasted little more than 30 hours. The man then shot himself. But the police waited for almost another day before entering the house - for reasons which were never explained, but can be assumedRoyalcourtier (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Funerals and tangi?
Restraining order against house not possible
It is not possible that a "restraining order has been issued against the house the two lived in". There is no such thing as a restraining order against a house.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)