lightning #1 is taking some poetic licence in his reasoning, and I do not think the slogans of law enforcement, however inadvisable (in this case the "war on drugs," ) can be turned around to make law enforcement itself just another "tactic" in the "war." In civilized society, law is paramount, and not even the (foolish) rhetoric of law enforcers can be used, as lightning #1 resourcefully did, to invalidate what they do.

That said, the concept of personal responsibility is a necessary fiction in a court of law, but closing the book on an obviously very complex case by appealing to nothing more than personal responsibility it is no more than either naivety or propaganda in an editorial.

I have had enough observational experience of police activities to know that the police DO harass people, especially people who do not have much wealth, power or status, and especially people who they consider threats to their authority. Furthermore, as anyone who has tried marijuana will know, it is far less antisocial in its potential effects than alcohol, and, as such, has achieved such a deep rooted place in our culture that enforcing prohibition against it is meaningless. Such enforcement is often no more than a weapon in the arsenal of police harassment.

Jan Molenaar killed someone and is now dead himself. The police clearly harassed him to such an extent that the camel's back broke, and now, sadly, one of their own is also dead. We need good guys and bad guys to make things easy to understand, easy to explain to our children, and, perhaps most of all, to assure ourselves that we ourselves are "good." But as adults we all know deep down that the divide between good guys and bad guys is a murky one, and that each of us is, potentially, as much of a "bad guy" as we are a "good guy."

So basically, Mr. Editor, we as adults we do not need simplistic, old fashioned "lessons" from you that treat your readers like children.

I am more than aware everyone has a right to their opinion, and forums like these very generously allow us to do so.

However in light of how fresh the Napier Siege still is, and with the one true and accurate fact that it is NO ONE'S fault but the gunman's himself, I am appalled by the above post by Lightning. To you Lightnng I say, it was murder and that can not be debated, aren't you lucky that you have the time and presence of mind to make such a post, and that you aren't caught up in the massive clean up and grieving process!

Now don't get me wrong with what I am about to say, I do not condone violence at any time except in self defence, but let's just consider a few things for a moment.

The Government have declared "War on Drugs", The man was an highly trained soldier and they brought their WAR to his door. He took them up on their declaration and engaged the enemy, He killed one, critically injured 3 others, including injury on a civilian who went to the aid of an "Enemy soldier" (to him) He then established a defensive position within his own house and was waiting for the next wave of the enemy to attack which came and he repelled. He remained communicative with the enemy which is unusual and was therefore trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the battle they instigated!! When negotiations failed, knowing he would not be treated fairly (It was not murder but a death on the battlefield during war) by the despotic system he chose to lay down his life to reduce overall casualties. A brave sacrifice on the battle field of the War on Drugs. All the deaths and misery that occurred during this battle would not have occurred if the governments would stop waging wars against inanimate objects! The blood is on the hands of those that declared the war, The pollies, not on those that defend their own possessions and rights in their own homes. Who really were the aggressors?

I would have said a simple case of cause and effect and if the aggressive forces withdraw from the field of battle there will be no more casualities!!!!