RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Accused shootout suspect stays put



John Walters enters Vermont District Court on Thursday.

VYTO STARINSKAS / RUTLAND HERALD
Toolbox

By Brent Curtis Herald Staff - Published: January 9, 2009

Rutland County prosecutors came to court Thursday with the intention of holding John M. Walters, charged with shooting at a State Police trooper, behind bars with no chance of posting bail.

But by the end of an afternoon hearing, it was unclear whether State's Attorney James Mongeon wanted to run what could be a lengthy legal gauntlet to ensure that Walters, who remains jailed for lack of $500,000 bail, stays where he is.

In the end, Mongeon decided to think on the issue and was granted a continuance by Judge Thomas Zonay who said the prosecution and the defense could talk the matter over before getting back to him.

Last month, prosecutors made a motion to hold Walters without bail after the defense made a motion to reduce the bail amount.

But when defense attorney Matthew Harnett withdrew his motion on Dec. 22, Mongeon and Deputy State's Attorney Marc Brierre, who is co-counsel in the case, decided not to follow suit.

"The underlying charges here, while fortunate in the way that no one was killed, represent one of the most serious types of cases we see and an appropriate case to hold without bail," Brierre said.

Walters, 51, came close to dying from wounds he received during a gunbattle at his Proctor home on Nov. 19. Walters, who was shot in the chest, leg and hand, spent several days at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center where he was admitted in serious condition.

When he appeared in court on Thursday, Walters' left hand was wrapped in a bandage and the arm was held in a sling, but otherwise the family man and local pharmacist appeared in better health than he did during his appearance at an arraignment hearing in early December.

Walters allegedly traded more than 20 shots with State Police Sgt. Thomas Mozzer, who came to the Walters' home at the bequest of Walters' wife, who told police she was worried about her husband's mental state.

Mozzer wrote in an affidavit that when he went into the house at 9 River St., he found Walters sitting on a bed with a 9mm semiautomatic gun in his hand.

After unsuccessfully ordering Walters to put the gun down and a failed attempt to wrestle the gun away from him, Mozzer wrote that he opened fire on Walters after the Proctor man strode toward him with his gun pointed at the trooper.

But whether the charges are warranted in the prosecutors' minds or not, Harnett argued that holding Walters without bail was pointless since he couldn't muster the bail amount already keeping him behind bars.

"This is a tremendous waste of our time and resources," Harnett said. "Why does someone who can't meet half-a-million-dollars bail need to be held without bail?"

Prosecutors said they argued during Walters' arraignment that they didn't want bail to be an option in the case.

But at least one of Walters' supporters wondered if the prosecution's motion was driven by the ongoing efforts of his friends and family to raise money for bail.

Wendy Predom, one of Walters' supporters, said this week that Walters' friends had hoped that a combination of fundraising and possible bail reductions in court could free Walters before his trial.

"The bottom line is we love him and want to do what we can for him," she said.

Asked after the hearing on Thursday whether the fundraising played a role in filing the hold without bail motion, Mongeon said only that he hadn't talked to anyone about the fundraising.

Mongeon and Brierre arrived at court prepared to call Mozzer to the witness stand and to play audiotaped recordings of what transpired in the Walters' house the night of the shooting.

But after Harnett objected to the playing of the tapes and after the defense attorney offered a compromise in which the state could seek to hold Walters without bail if the defense reintroduced its motion to reduce bail, Mongeon and Brierre decided to delay the hearing to consider their options.

Contact Brent Curtis at brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com.

This article was edited Jan. 9, 2008, to correct the fact that it is friends of Walters working to raise funds for his bail and remove affiliations of the group with a local church, which is not involved.








READER COMMENTS


I only see a charge of "attempted murder in the second degree", at which stems from being shot at. Is there anything they can charge him with, before he was shot at, in his own home? Resisting arrest? Resisting arrest, for what crime? I would truly like too know what laws were broke, before the officer entered the home and whether or not he had permission to even enter the house.
-- Posted by T BONE on Tue, Jan 13, 2009, 5:28 pm EST

report this comment


You have no rights except the ones the government chooses to allow you to have. It's not for you to decide any more.

Just take a look at the advertisements at the bottom of this page... "Be a Police Officer", "Law Enforcement Jobs", "Police Exam"... We are not becoming a police state, we already are one.
Here's a good question; What's going to happen to all those non-governmental "security" people like Blackwater (over 140,000) when their money fountain dries up in Iraq? Do you really think they will just quietly put their big guns away and go back to their 8-5 jobs?

Sadly, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless pretty words.
-- Posted by steve Nunya on Tue, Jan 13, 2009, 11:31 am EST

report this comment


Arnie, not one thing I said denotes arrogance. Not once did I speak of my self in any light, be it good or bad (other than to note the industry I work in and an awareness of its terminology). Again, you project your own assumptions on others. Additionally, you are incorrect in stating that I have not commented on the article at all. I have, in fact, commented on related subjects such as police fallibility and bedside firearms. However, you would be correct in stating the subject matter has not been on the whole (nor majority) about the article so I also conclude my meanderings with you and will remain on topic hereafter.
-- Posted by Scott Frank on Tue, Jan 13, 2009, 10:21 am EST

report this comment


Arnie
I don't live under a log, and I know plenty of Vermonters who do not own guns. But guns is not my point. My point is you are not always home with your loaded guns waiting to protect your domain. I am sure you wouldn't dream of posting on here where you keep any money in your home, and the fact is guns are a type of currency for criminals. Just trying to point out an unsafe practice some people are participating in, no reason to be so harsh. I
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Jan 13, 2009, 7:49 am EST

report this comment


None None

Unsafe for who None None?

Just about every Vermonter has a gun or guns in their home and more in their vehicles, where do you live, under a log?

My gun is loaded for a reason and I bet you can't guess what the reason is?
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 10:50 pm EST

report this comment


Would those of you using your real names please consider posting about all the guns in your possession on these public forums. Has it occurred to any of you that criminals looking to acquire guns for their own use or to sell illegally have just been provided with a wonderful place to get them?! And since it is easy to read when you're posting it isn't too hard to figure out when you might be home on your computer and when you're usually out at work or out of the home. Don't make your homes a target or our community any more unsafe please.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 10:16 pm EST

report this comment


The futre of the U.S.A. ..................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&feature=PlayList&p=05C03488D821FFD9&index=0&playnext=1
-- Posted by T BONE on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 2:12 pm EST

report this comment


"Tsk, tsk, Mr. Thibault. I seem to have touched a nerve. I never proclaimed myself an expert nor preached any thing. All I did was point out your baseless assumptions on my supposed intent. As for the meaning of my trolling post, you have just illustrated it well. I understand that the article was published, you read it and the ensuing comments, and posted your own. I did exactly the same. Again, I never preached nor attempted any theatrics. You seem to have some fantasy of intent going on behind the scenes. In my posts, I mean nothing more nor less than the exact words I've typed. Anything more is your own imagination.
-- Posted by Scott Frank on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 11:31 am EST"

Actually Scott, I am through with you and your arrogance and your lack of engaging in the subject.

In none of your posts did you mention a single word about the Article nor did you post a comment pertaining to the article and that was the Real Topic. Instead Scot, you chose to throw in a few comments about me and your Internet Jargon.

You Scot are the problem, you are exactly as you accuse me of. You came, selected a poster, selected a reference to a post and you commence to engage your Troll and flamer posts and you are the one who initiated argumentative responses.
Thank you for giving is a name for people like you. TROLL and FLAMER fit you perfectly.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 2:06 pm EST

report this comment


If you can not feel safe in your own home... Where can you go?
-- Posted by T BONE on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 1:36 pm EST

report this comment


Arnie: Thank you for that great link to the affidavit.

Link to affidavit: http://www.rutlandherald.com/assets/pdf/RH600911120.PDF

Link to the press release: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20081120/NEWS/811200379

Now, according to the affidavit & press release;( and entertaining the thought that all of these statements are true). The short version; cop enters home (without a warrant,or probable cause), sees homeowner in his bedroom with a gun. cop orders home owner to drop the gun so they can talk. homeowner tells the cop to leave. cop insists on staying and ordering homeowner to drop his gun. homeowner then tries to physically remove cop from his house, cop still insists on staying. homeowner then resorts to (a last chance alternative) grabs his gun, points it at intruder(cop) and demands that he leave. cop fires on homeowner. homeowner fires back IN SELF DEFENSE!
-- Posted by T BONE on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 1:26 pm EST

report this comment


Tsk, tsk, Mr. Thibault. I seem to have touched a nerve. I never proclaimed myself an expert nor preached any thing. All I did was point out your baseless assumptions on my supposed intent. As for the meaning of my trolling post, you have just illustrated it well. I understand that the article was published, you read it and the ensuing comments, and posted your own. I did exactly the same. Again, I never preached nor attempted any theatrics. You seem to have some fantasy of intent going on behind the scenes. In my posts, I mean nothing more nor less than the exact words I've typed. Anything more is your own imagination.
-- Posted by Scott Frank on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 11:31 am EST

report this comment


So I will ask you folks Who shot first in this debacle??? I do believe it was the "Policeman" ie. "Gestapo" that shot first. And I do believe that in the "Official" press conference, that used to be on-line, the day after the shooting the officers "official" statement he clearly stated that he told the victims wife to stay outside he was going in to talk to her husband. There is nothing right about that statement. First of all he was there on a "welfare check" not a domestic dispute so he really had no reason to enter the premises without permission and by the "Official" statement there was none granted. If he was to enter the residence isn't normal police protocol to wait for back up so this type of stuff doesn't happen? Where does the state get off charging this man with attempted 2nd degree murder when he was simply protecting himself from an intruder? Seems to me that the majority of people in this state really don't give care about this until it happens to them or some one that they care about. Bottom line this officer was way out of line with his actions. He had no right to enter that house because the victim was not posing a threat to society in any way shape or form. So what his wife was ****** off at him so who gives a crap I hope she sleeps real good at night and when the bank comes to thier house to foreclose because she had her husband shot and thrown in jail because she wanted to wear the pants she freezes her ass off under a bridge somewhere while her husband waits for his day in court and I really hope I get drawn for jury duty on this one... Peace out liberal junkies.. Don't come knocking on my door when the rest of your constiturtional rights are ripped away from you.. I LOVE OUR FORE FATHERS... They had a vision and now money, power and greed have clouded that vision.. C'mon T-Bone lets get a militia together so we can help protect the children because they are the future of this country...
-- Posted by Article 16 Vt. Constitution on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 10:02 am EST

report this comment


Additionally, any guilt on Mr. Walters is to be determined by the process of our courts; not opinions expressed on some comment thread.

Understand something Scott Frank, the article was published and I read the article and many made comments about Mr Walters as such as, put in prison, rot in jail, he should have killed himself and many more Walters is guilty opinions. The White Box said POST A COMMENT and I posted a comment now you want to preach to me? Move on to another forum and another thread where you can be the Internet Hero, save the theatrics, I am not interested.


I read the affidavit
http://www.rutlandherald.com/assets/pdf/RH600911120.PDF
and on page 3 paragraph 3, I firmly believe that the Police Officer should have left. It was a friend who called the police and she did so because Mr Walters had drank a lot of wine and took Prescription Drugs and they were afraid he was going to get on his motorcycle. Understand something Scott, the Police are suppose to be a REACTIONARY FORCE and they are only to react AFTER something has happened. This police Officer entered the home and went deep into the home under the belief that he was a qualified Psychologist. His capacity was limited to ONLY enforcing the Laws of the State and no laws had been broken, therefore even though his intent may have been true and decent, he was unqualified and because he was unqualified when noticed Mr Walters sitting on the bed with a firearm between his legs, he should have immediately left. He was entering an area he was UNQUALIFIED for and all he did as a result of staying was provoke a mentally incapacitated Mr Walters into a gun fight.
Hopefully the Courts will release Mr Walters as having broken no laws and seeing how he was provoked within the confines of his own home to the actions that took place. Hopefully as well the Officer will be found guilty of provoking a situation he was unqualified as a Police Officer to engage in and be reprimanded with a light punishment and this can go down as the reasons why people should not engage themselves in situataion that they are unqualified in. Like you Scott who pretends to be the authority on the Internet.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 10:00 am EST

report this comment


Scott

You are a great dancer.

"S B: From my experience reading these comment threads, Arnie is participating in an activity called "trolling" or "flaming" wherein the participant sifts through various user-created posts and begins posting comments which are intended to stir up conflict and initiate argumentative responses."

What was the meaning of that post? It sure seems you were trying to accuse me of something other than having a opposing point of view. You tried to discredit my point of view as a intentional function of a troll or flamer.

So tell me Scott, the Internet self proclaimed expert, what exactly was your intent? I have been on the internet for over 20 years and have seen plenty of Super Tap Dancers and you are right up there.

I am very accomplished with the Colt M1911A1 and have shot that in competition as well, I still prefer the AR15 and it is far more easily grabbed and prepared for use. To each their own though. I prefer Colts over second rate wannabes. I like the true Mil Spec in my firearms, so you use your Firestone and I will use my Colt.

Save your tap dancing for the newbies and if you don't have an opinion about the topic, keep your opinions about the poster to yourself, it only shows your ignorance when you try to play that chatroom garbage. I BET YOU EVEN THINK I AM YELLING. ROFLMAO Such insane beliefs.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 9:32 am EST

report this comment


An AR-15 is impractical for defending oneself in a home invasion. A simple .45 (ex. the Firestorm 1911 series) would suffice in stopping power and be quicker to handle in an emergency situation.
-- Posted by Scott Frank on Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 7:47 pm EST

report this comment


Arnie: I spend some time perusing internet-hosted content, yes. My line of work is centered on the platform. I am aware of the terminology that has evolved with it. Name calling over a difference of opinion is childish, no matter what the opinion is, unless said opinion exactly defines the term one is calling another. You make a blind assumption, however, in thinking that I fully disagree with your views on any matter other than what I've posted my opinion on within this website (not very much so far). By what - do you make this assumption? What have I said that shows me to presume to have all of the answers to whatever set of questions you are referencing? Wherein did I say police never make mistakes? I've witnessed the police making mistakes. I've witnessed people blaming police for correctly doing their job. I am not an absolutist on either side of that fence and you are speaking ignorantly to say otherwise. Are these assumptions of yours based solely on referring to your posts as flame bait/trolling? That's not very substantial. Additionally, any guilt on Mr. Walters is to be determined by the process of our courts; not opinions expressed on some comment thread.
-- Posted by Scott Frank on Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 7:44 pm EST

report this comment


OK, you all forgot that it was because he wanted to ride his motorcycle!

http://www.wcax.com/Global/category.asp?C=139464&nav=menu183_5 So take his keys, or wait across the street, call for sum back up, get the kid out of the house!

I agree with most of what Arnie is saying. But I have personally met officer Mozzer, and my first impression of him, is that he is a very high-strong curmudgeon.

That said, I also sleep with a fully loaded AR-15 next to my bed, along with several other types of firearms and weapons. And it is not because I am paranoid or because i live out in the boonies, in fact, I live in the middle of the city, where police are abundant (I"ll be nice). My choice to have such weapons is simple,(and it is NOT because I like to hunt, and yes i do hunt)It is because, I LIKE THEM, and i like to shoot them. Most of you people think that the second amendment has something to do with either hunting or ducks! ("A free people ought not only be armed, but disciplined." George Washington, Jan.7th,1790)

No. I have never taken a police, military or security training course. All-tho I did consider becoming a law enforcement officer. but how long would my career last if i obeyed my oath to uphold and enforce the law, if i had to arrested half my co-workers?

How many times have they drove past you like you were sitting still?

How many times have you seen them use there blue lights to get through traffic?

(Did you know; many of them, (including fire and rescue workers) have a device that changes the traffic lights to give give them a green light.)

And how many complaints have you heard about the excessive force? And we give them all kinds of tools (toys) pepper-spray, tassers, night-sticks, spot-lights, slapstick's, lead filled gloves, lock-pics, tire spikes, and many others... My guess is that when we give them these things... there first thought, IS NOT, "gees, i hope i never have to use this thing." More like; "I cant wait for to see what this can do." And it is always justified, because they have a badge and the perpetrator has a record (or rap sheet) or "mental problems". And let me ask you this; If you see a cop beak the law... Who polices the police?

the truth is: is that we have all been brain washed scents we were born ( through school and TV and every media outlet). We all think, "cops are good guys", "Judges know the law", (and my personnel favorite), "the truth will come out in court!"

"Come on", cops, and judges are human too, badges are not halo's, and if Judges knew the law... why do we have lawyers? and why is it the only evidence and testimony, that (seems to) gets suppressed, or is irrelevant, is in support of the defendant? Public-defenders work for the state, just like the district attorney. the state makes money on convictions, and the state loses money when they don't get convictions. allot of waisted resources and money when someone is found not guilty. that's why we have PLEA BARGAINS! And (for example) you must of heard by now that it cost the state between $40,000.00 and $60,000.00 a year, TO HOUSE ONE INMATE! That's almost more than twice what i make working 40 hours a week all year long, and have too feed myself, pay for my phone, electric, heat, rent/mortgage, TV, trash,etc.. and they're herded like cattle, eat the same food, watch the same TV,( all in the same building) and any extras they(the inmates)need they have to pay for themselves. Hm-mm... not seeing were $50,000.00 is justified. you all,(obviously) have access too the Internet, and if you really have the guts and open mind to see the truth, you can find it (and you will not like what you find). Everywhere you find , money and/or power, you will find corruption!

DID YOU KNOW: There is know supported evidence too link Osama Binladen too 9/11

DID YOU KNOW: Grandpa Bush, laundered money for the Nazi's and profited from both

sides of WWII

DID YOU KNOW: That it was Reagan that ban machine-gun manufacturing for civilians,

He was the Republican who was shoot at close range with a revolver.

DID YOU KNOW: Three of Clinton's personal bodyguards were killed by one of there

own co-worker's at Waco

DID YOU KNOW: Randy Weaver's 10 year old son and his son's dog were both shot

in the BACK with machine-gun fire by the F.B.I.

DID YOU KNOW: That federal income tax violates two constitutional amendments

DID YOU KNOW: When our founding fathers drafted the Bill of Rights, they believed that

they were GOD given birth rights so that every man is equal

DID YOU KNOW: The United States are united for only one cause FREEDOM

and free state is just that (free state) with there own laws and there own

regulations, so you can move to a state with laws more suitable to

your lifestyle

DID YOU KNOW: That federal agents can now come in to your home with no warrant, take you away and torcher you legally! you get no phone call, no

Lawyer, nor' even any charges against you. under the guise you might

be a terrorist

You people need to WAKE UP! And take a real good look at what is going on around you.

Ask yourself this; what grade were you in when they taught you the constitution?

Have you heard the term; let go and let God? Most of you let go and let government!

Real freedom takes responsibility! An armed citizen is homeland security! An armed citizen is a Well Regulated Militia! And if any of you look at the "Declaration of Independents" you will see that the same reason we broke free of England is the same crap we put up with today! Was Mr. Walters depressed, upset, angry, distraught? I guess maybe!

One thing is for sure, when Mozzer saw him with a gun in hand ,his first instinct should have been to get the child out of the house and out of harms way, wait for backup, and try and talk Mr. Walters out. But instead of neutralizing the situation, his actions provoked and escalated the situation.

Crime is on the rise, and not because of just druggies, but ordinarily law-biding people trying to make ends meet, support and feed there family's. Times are tough, and they're going to get worse. History has a way of repeating it self over and over. And it doesn't take someone with a PhD, Md's, MSG,or any other funky letters or diplomas, to figure it out. Federal agents, cops, military personal, or whatever will follow orders even if they disagree with them just too collect there pension and/or take care of there family.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS; THE MORE POWER YOU GIVE GOVERNMENT, THE LESS FREEDOM YOU WILL HAVE! IF YOU LOVE FREEDOM; THANK OUR FOUNDERS FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT!
-- Posted by T BONE on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 9:51 pm EST

report this comment


Sb

I am going to miss your poor logic.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 3:39 pm EST

report this comment


Arnie,
Close enough only matters with horseshoes and hand grenades. No need to respond, I'm done with you.
-- Posted by S B on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 3:26 pm EST

report this comment


Mrs C

Well with you point of view, ther eis no need for for a trial or investigation, we should just fall on our knees and beleive that Policemen are never wrong and whatever they choose to do, they do for the good of the people.
Sorry, Mrs C, I still feel he made an error in judgement and there is no need for name calling and silly comparisions, but if this is your bag, have fun.

Tom

I guess you are making an assumption that Mr Harnett denied the tapes because of what? Maybe you should ask Mr Harnett why.
Not wanting a tape played is not anykind of evidence that I am aware, maybe you can explain how that would make anyone guilty or innocent. Maybe you have a Crystal ball that works better than everyone elses'.
I bore you? You could have stopped reading at any time or merely skipped the post, you bore yourself.

Leo

Define Point and then explain by how the article is written, how was Mr Walters Pointing Maybe Mr Walters doesn't need a trial, we have all of the experts right here who claim he is guilty and police don't make mistakes, so hey, save the taxpayer's some moeny and skip the trial.. LOL
I see Leo, where it is a matter of Guilty or Not guilty it is a matter of Setting an example for others. I got it. Thanks for the clarification.

SB

On the contrary, I was in the position before, not the exact but close enough. No! I do not have all the answers but unlike you all who seem to have all the evidence needed by merely accepting the fact that it was a policeman and he had to be right, regardles, Mr Walters is Guilty before he sets foot in te courthouse. It is you people who are passing judgement on little information and you want a man hanged on your presumptions. I am the one who wants the trial and feels the Policeman made a judgement call that was wrong. Do you not agree that the policemen could have removed Mrs walters from the scene and gone outside? Well?


Scott

I see you spend a lot of time on blogs and seem to know the language. Am I stirring up trouble? I guess I am when people decide that anyone who disagrees with their point of view is subject to name calling and wild accusations. You seem to have all the answers because you seem to fully disagree with my view, so where is your evidence that police never make mistakes and Mr Walters is guilty of what?

Comfy

It seems you are everywhere with an opinion and you never produce facts or reference, you seem to just get your kicks with assaulting the posters. Flamer, Troll? ah! the comedy of it all.

I think at the upper left corner of the white box it says POST A COMMENT. So Comfy you demand gay rights what happened to right of free speech? I do not recall slandering anyone? Not do I recall personnally attacking anyone, what I do recall is stating that I feel the police, based on what is written in the above article made an error in judgement and the maggots have crawled out of the woodwork since I made the comments. Gotta Love it.. LOL
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 12:48 pm EST

report this comment


Thanks for the clarification Scott. I thought he was just a jack@$$.
-- Posted by S B on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 11:10 am EST

report this comment


Does this make Arnie a Flamer, a Troll or both?
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 10:12 am EST

report this comment


S B: From my experience reading these comment threads, Arnie is participating in an activity called "trolling" or "flaming" wherein the participant sifts through various user-created posts and begins posting comments which are intended to stir up conflict and initiate argumentative responses.
-- Posted by Scott Frank on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 9:55 am EST

report this comment


Arnie,

You seem to have all the answers. Why aren't you on the job??? Or are you only capable of being the Monday morning quarterback?? It's easy to sit behind your keyboard and say should have...., should have....., should have..... without ever being the position of having to make that decision.
-- Posted by S B on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 9:25 am EST

report this comment


Our Police are Trained, and from my understandng, when you point a gun a police officer, your setting yourself up to be shot.

IF this idiot didn't mean anything by it he should have put the Gun down, or when the Trooper started to shoot he should have dropped to the ground spread with his arms out!

Mongeon needs to prosecute this to the fullest, he needs to make an example to everyone that the State of VT WILL PROTECT IT'S OFFICER'S with Prosecution of anyone who points a gun at them.

We have the Police for a reason, and im not saying you have to respect a cop because he is a cop, but common sense says don't point guns at anyone
ANYONE!
-- Posted by Leo Porter on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 8:52 am EST

report this comment


Mr Arnold,
Please explain to all of us common folk who can't read, and obviously have the wrong opinion on law enforcement and public safety why, Harnett objected to the playing of the tapes of what transpired in the Walters' house the night of the shooting???

Wouldn't this just prove the police were wrong? If you could please keep your response to under 1000 words, because honestly you bore me
-- Posted by Thomas Best on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 8:20 am EST

report this comment


arnie..thank you so much for your incredible insight..I now stand before you a changed person..I will no longer believe that every situation the police are faced with is differant and will forever believe that they are out to get us . I will always believe that they are wrong for doing their jobs. I will always belive that the criminals are right..thank you dear arnie for your posts I feel so much better now..I will now read this paper and believe everything it says before I make any posts...oh and arnie I do hope you can feel the sacasim in my veins..goodbye dear arnie thank you for changing my life
-- Posted by mrs c on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 7:38 am EST

report this comment


Mrs c

I am not asking for Mr Mosser to be crucified for his error, I am asking for Mr Walters not to be so harshly judged here on these forums with the evidence presented as it is.
If Mr Mosser did make a mistake Mrs C, he will need friends like you to see him through and give him the support that he will need. If I am wrong, then the Walters will need support. Either way, it won't have a super happy ending but hopefully an ending all can live with.
You seem to be a good friend, be there for him and give him and his wife all the love you can muster. Sorry If I sound hard, but I am saying it as I read what is available.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 12:38 am EST

report this comment


By the way Mrs c

I am not spewing hatred because I feel the Policeman made a wrong decision by advancing too far in the situation. That is the way I see it.
I have been to a Domestic Disturbance where the wife shot at the husband and we went in and we had to be a little physical to keep the wife and husband seperated. When we tried to get them into seperate rooms to gain the story, each saw the physical force needed on the other to keep them away from each other. That triggered them to turn against us. Been there, done that Mrs C. Have had similiar training Mrs C and then some. That was a very long time ago.
I have no doubt that Mr Mosser is a great Policeman and that really isn't the issue, the issue I made is he made a mistake. He should not have advanced any further and should have left. He had that choice Mrs C, he had the choice to take Mrs Walters and leave the building. Why did he choose to continue and to wrestle with Mr Walters? Why Mrs C, that question will be asked in court and there is every right for an answer. I never said in any way I hated cops, Mrs C, you are so loyal to Mr Mosser you are the one filled with hate towards any one who so much as tries and say that Mr Mosser made an error. it may have been the first in his career, but will not be his last. You need to calm down. Mr Walters was in his own domain and Mr Mosser was the intruder, uniform or not, he was the intruder to a man who was supposedly Mentally Disabled. Hopefully there will be a happy ending to it all, but tell me.. what do you think the Walters have been through, he was shot and his life is disrupted and he has been taken from his family. Do you justify that because you are a friend of Mr Mosser? I am sorry Mrs C, I feel Mr Mosser was in error, he had many other choices, at least that is what I read from the article above. If there is more evidence, as I said evidence that is from both sides, then let's see it and if Mr Walters turned out to have done something that is not written above to justify the actions of the police, then fine. I do not see anything presented that would point in that direction, so let it out Mrs C. Once again, I do not hate Policemen, sorry you feel I do. I know mistakes can be made and I know mistakes are made. Let me tell you a quick story. I was on Main Gate, I was a Cpl and there was a Sgt in charge. A call came over the radio that a young Marine in a Blue Maverick was heading towards the gate, he had just killed a man and left him in housing. A few minutes later, Mrs C that Blue Maverick was at my side and I was getting all the ID etc and the situation was under control. Suddenly the Sgt saw the Maverick and came running over and told the drunk driver that he was under military apprehension for murder. The drunk kid paniced and put the car in gear and stepped on it. I was ordered to fire. I pulled my .45 and emptied it into the Maverick. I did a lot of damage to the Marine's shoulder, bout blew his arm off. It turned out that I was following orders but they were the WRONG orders, we had a radio and the Sgt should have let the guy go and we could have called by radio for more assistance. When we got all the facts together, it turned out that the dead guy (one of us, busted his sternum and got him back)was a buddy of the guy in the Maverick. He had been wounded in combat and was on convalesent leave and they had been out drinking together. The alcohol and the medication didn't mix, so when his buddy dropped him off, he was walking up the sidewalk to his house and fell down dead. The kid in the Maverick had no clue Mrs C, lost the use of an arm for no reason because we made the WRONG decisions. Mrs C humans make mistakes. I feel Mr Mosser made a mistake. If I am wrong, then the evidence will show that, but until all evidence is brought out, it is based on what has been written about it.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 12:18 am EST

report this comment


Oh arnie arnie arnie...I cannot even respond ..Of course I am so wrong and you are right... I am clouded in my judgement... and I must apoligize for living on the right side of the law...you are the almighty and you know the truth..so obviously trying to get you to see both sides of things isn't in your makeup.. what I can say is I feel sorry for you.. and meet me in court..but we know you won't
-- Posted by mrs c on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 12:01 am EST

report this comment


Leo

No! The Police Officer made two poor judgement calls. Takes two to fight and he chose to advance in the situation. He made an error and Mr Walters is not guilty of anything, except causing his wife to be concern. If there is more facts to the story, then share, but what is written in the above article and what is stated as being the policeman's own words, is proof enough to see that the Policeman made a poor judgement call.


Mrs c

You believe that Police don't make mistakes? You may love your husband and admire him and you have every right to do so and maybe your husband is a great Policeman, there are many great policemen, I have known quite a few myself. Served with several. Mrs C, that doesn't make policemen incapable of making wrong decisions. The article doesn't say a word about what Mrs Mozzer went through and neither does it say what Mrs Walters went through but it highlights what Mr Walters went through. The article only has the policeman's words and doesn't really state Mr Walter's side.
Mrs C, You need to regroup, just because you know a good Policeman or are married to one doesn't make them incapable of making wrong decisions and this Policeman did. So unless you want to give reference to the full report and one that has BOTH sides of the story and not just one side, you are calling me names and you have no clue what my background is. You are acting with knee slapping responses and it shows that when done that way without thought, errors are made and you are showing us all, just how pathetic a knee slap decision is.
What Mrs Mozzer went through is really irrevelant to what actually happened. The FACTS Mrs C, just the facts please, skip the drama and the sensationalism.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:50 pm EST

report this comment


Mr. Porter my teddybears are reserved for my kids not these idiots..thank you for yor support of the police.
-- Posted by mrs c on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:45 pm EST

report this comment


Hey arnie you are a waste of even one of my thoughts..but I cannot sit here and read any more of your bull... call me after you go through 16 weeks of training at the police academy and three addtional ones for troopers. call me after use of force is crammed down your throat...when you have trained in these exact situations....call me when you are on a job that is thankless and dangerous.. call me when your wife goes through what Mrs. Mosser did that night... call me when you need a trooper. Sir you have not a clue and if you are only getting your information in this paper then I beg you to be in court with me and learn the truth...you sir are an idiot...and you sir are what is wrong with society! you never get all the facts and have so much to say in negetive about police officers and their actions? live one night in their lives then talk to me. I will be the one sitting in support of trooper mosser,his wife and their children... and I feel lucky to have them working in this area.. you are a big man here spewing hatered without knowing one real fact..I feel sorry for your ignorance.. see you in court but probably not right?
-- Posted by mrs c on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:27 pm EST

report this comment


IF YOU POINT A GUN AT A POLICE OFFICER YOU WILL BE SHOT END OF STORY!

This trooper was in the right- and has the majority of support.

I find people that question these types of things are either A> anti police, criminals and alike or B> someone who thinks we can rehabilitate everyone and give them all nice fluffy teddy bears!
-- Posted by Leo Porter on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:27 pm EST

report this comment


I think this is all retarded..one guy is saying the police shouldnt have even responded??
Who said that? The Police that did respond made the wrong decision. He blew it.
that is stupid when the police are called they need to respond quickly to save lives.
Whose life was being threaten? I did not read anywhere that the wife had called the police because he had a gun, I read where his wife was concerned about his mental health. So what? Yes! That may be eligible for a policeman to go and check it out. I do not think that the policeman once seeing that Mr Walters had the firearm and did not intend to put it down when ordered to, should have stayed and continued to handled the situation as he did. When Mr Walters showed he was not responsive to the Policeman and that Mr Walters was becoming aggitated with the Policeman and had asked him to leave, the Policeman should have left. He had a radio, it wasn't the end of the world had he left, he could have regrouped, reevaluated the situation and requested more assistance. The Policeman fired FIRST, regardless and he fired first insode the man's home. That is where the problem is. Who had the right to be in the bedroom, Mr Walters or the Policeman?

When they dont we end up with a tragity like the recent one in wells..
Entirely different and the circumstances are entirely different. Compare Apples to Apples, Please
Lets just think about this... the police are called..so the best way to get them to leave is to walk around your house with a loaded gun?
Mr walters wasn't walking around his house, he was sitting on his bed, in his bedroom. The Policeman, entered far deeper into the house than he should have, he used vocal loud commands to a person who he had already been told may be Mentally incapcitated, the Policeman even after he witnessed no response from his orders to put down the firearm, advanced the situation even further by forcibily trying to take the firearm away. It was only AFTER the policeman made several errors in judgement that Mr Walters approached the Policeman with his gun pointed at him, ( the cops words and not Mr Wlaters words, we haven't heard Mr Walter's side yet and the story may be far different.) The Policeman was in err and was very unprodfessional in his actions.

Pretty stupid if you ask me. This would have all been avoided if he gave the cop the gun.
Stupid? I think it was stupid for the cop to enter deep into another man's home based only on a concern. The Policeman never needed to enter, he could have attained a statement from Mrs Walters and then radio for medical and Legal assistance, he chose to enter further into the house with an understandingthat the man was not threatening anyone, hadn't caused harm to anyone, was no threat to any one and once he had Mr Walters into view, started barking orders and physically wrestled with him after he had the knowledge that the Mr Walters had a firearm and may be Mentally Unstable at the moment. Now I don't about you, but that sounds like a very stupid move on the Policeman's side and it should have happened differently. Mr Walters is guilty of what?
He hadnt broken a law but it sounded like this man needed help.
Your wife or a friend has never told you that you needed help? Did you? Do you think the police should have wrestled with you after your wife or friend said that to you?
I am all for gun rights but sleeping with a loaded AR-15 is stupid.
Stupid? I don't sleep with it, it is beside my bed, not in it. I live in the country and I don't intend to allow the intruder to dictate to me what he or them is going to do to me or to my wife or kids, I will be dictating to him. If that is stupid to you, fine.. I am not asking you for your opinion nor do I care about it.

If you want to do that join the army and go fight for your country,
Been there, done that. Two tours.
its obvious u have bottled up anger, take it out on some taliban not your family or an officer of the law.
I haven't taken it out on my family or a police officer, I will take it out on anyone who enters my home, uninvited. Now, let's reverse your opinion, Why don't you say the same thing to the police officer? what makes you think he doesn't have anger bottled up inside and wanted to insitgate the situation more? I knew plenty of Adreneline junkies, they would take point on patrol, just for the high or even start a firefight just for the thrill of it. Understand something Mike, there are people who become policemen, not to serve and protect but to get a high. Look at the ones with Shaved heads, bloused trousers, avaitor sunglasses, military fatigues etc. Many are great guys doing a thankless job but some are looking for thrills and the excitement of being a cop. Do you really think that all cops come from that perfect world you have imagined in your head? OK!. The Policeman still made the wrong decisions. period


PS. mozzer fired after the retard pointed the gun at him not while he was sitting on his bed. if a guy points a gun at me im going to shoot him not wait for him to shoot me first

Retard? He was a Pharmacist and that takes brains Mike, probably a lot more than you have. The only one so far that says he had the firearm pointed at him is the policeman. What would you expect the policeman to say after a shootout? That he was wrong that he made a mistake.. when have you ever heard a policeman say that? I rea dwhere Mr Walters was walking toward the policeman and just what does POINTED mean? does it mean he had it up in a streched out arm and sights aligned? or does it mean he was holding down by his waist and it was aiming towards the officer? If it was, that is not a shooting position and only on tv do they shoot from that low. So what is the defination of POINTING? I think that needs to be explained better before anyone here can call Mr Walters a retard or anything else.
-- Posted by Mike Jones on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 9:43 pm EST
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 10:41 pm EST

report this comment


I think this is all retarded..one guy is saying the police shouldnt have even responded?? that is stupid when the police are called they need to respond quickly to save lives. When they dont we end up with a tragity like the recent one in wells..

Lets just think about this... the police are called..so the best way to get them to leave is to walk around your house with a loaded gun? Pretty stupid if you ask me. This would have all been avoided if he gave the cop the gun. He hadnt broken a law but it sounded like this man needed help. I am all for gun rights but sleeping with a loaded AR-15 is stupid. If you want to do that join the army and go fight for your country, its obvious u have bottled up anger, take it out on some taliban not your family or an officer of the law.


PS. mozzer fired after the retard pointed the gun at him not while he was sitting on his bed. if a guy points a gun at me im going to shoot him not wait for him to shoot me first
-- Posted by Mike Jones on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 9:43 pm EST

report this comment


None none

The second half of your post, you actually show a fairly decent thought process, the first half you were comparing Apples to Elephants.

Let's look at what we do know.

1. Mr Walters was in the privacy of his own home, no law broken there.
2. His wife was concerned for his mental health, still no law broken there.
3. She calls the police and one arrives and goes into the home on a concern and not on probable cause. There were no laws broken, no domestic disturbance, no assault no nothing, just a concerned wife and at this point the officer has not seen Mr Walters, because Mr Walters is in the bedroom, sitting on the bed.
4. The officer based on a Concern, enters the home, no warrant and yes! maybe an invite by the wife, he leaves the doorway and commences to go deeper into the home, not with a warrant or probable cause but by the invite of a concern wife. He goes to the bedroom at which time he sees Mr Walters sitting on the bed with a 9mm. No laws are broken and no threats have been made. The Police Officer, at this time, should have turned around and taken Mrs Walters outside, out of harm's way. He didn't. He did not seek protection for the very person who he answered the call for and who was concerned.
5. As the homeowner, Mr Walters asks the police officer to leave. There has been no laws broken, no signs of an assault, no domestic disturbance, no nothing. The Officer who had zero probable cause should have answered the homeowner's request by leaving. Did he ask the wife if he could stay, because at this point with no laws broken, the second homeowner has canceled out the invite. The Officer has seen no laws broken and really no threats. Is a hunter sitting in his living room a threat if he is cradling his rifle? I am a competitor and I handle my firearms all of the time, even while watching tv and yes! I have been known to drink while I am doing it. My firearms are empty (except for the one by the bed) and I am breaking no laws. Sure my wife and I could have a fight while I am in the process of cleaning one of my firearms and she may call the police out of anger, does the Police have any right to enter my home and try and confiscate my firearm? NO! They have no more right to confiscate my firearm than they do to bust down your door to your house and take away your computer for typing in FREE SPEECH.
6. The officer, thru a poor judgement, first demanded Mr Walters to drop his firearm. Why should he? He threaten no one with it and he was breaking no laws? The officer at this point when Mr Walters did not do as requested, should have considered the situation, once again and left. He had multiple choices on what he could do next. He could just go outside as asked by Mr Wlaters. He could have gone outside and brought Mrs Walters with him if he sincerely felt that a threat was present. He could have gone outside with Mrs Walters and radioed for assistance and for a Doctor to help evaluate the situation. He could have just left. At this point, had he left with Mrs Walters, no one would be hurt except for Mr Walters and that only would be true if Mr Walters was considering Suicide and there is absolutely no reason to believe he was.
Now your comparision is with me sitting not in the privacy of my own home, but strolling in a public park and it is not my wife who is concerned but a total stranger approaching me and in your comparision the stranger is armed and wants to shoot me. What makes you think I would need the Police? What makes you think that the stranger wouldn't be shot before he could open his mouth and utter his first word? You are right it is legal to carry in Vermont and only 4 cities require permits for concealed firearms. You would be surprised how many people you pass everyday are armed. This is Vermont and firearms are very much apart of our lives and have been since we were very young. I am very comfortable with either a handgun or a rifle.
Mr Walters is guilty of nothing except for getting aggitated over a forcefull police officer who made the wrong decisions and excecuted the wrong moves in doing so.
People in Vermont remember Randy Weaver and understand the Police are very capable of over reacting and when they do we are not under any law to comply. The policeman made a very serious judgement call and he is the one who escalated the situation into what it became.
The Policeman had time and endless resources at his command. He chose not to use any of them. Mr Walters was confined to his home and was a threat to no one other than maybe to himself.
You want Gun Control None None, then move to Morton Grove, Ill. You are over reacting as much as the policeman did. The cop made a mistake.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 9:41 pm EST

report this comment


your right Arnie, people are to forgetful of common rights... and they also forget other news... how 'bout the pepper-spray and pillowcase incident, or the teen in handcuffs tasered in a patrol-car, or the two cops that ran over a guy, the dumba** that got his dog run over, how 'bout the welfare check on the guy camping,cops shooting beanbags too provoke that shootout, or the cop that got run-over after being shot because he pepper-sprayed the guy for not pulling over in time, and countless others. all are still on the force with only couple of days off with pay. except for the last one they want to name a highway after. these people will understand when it is them or there friends or there family that get caught up in the injustice system. And lets not forget that, just speaking of the Bill of Rights is considered an act of terrorism.

P.S. if anybody is interested and you do decide to look at the constitution you will find that suicide is against the law.
-- Posted by T BONE on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 9:20 pm EST

report this comment


First off, the fact that the wife calls the police does warrant them responding and just because the male in the home asks the officer to leave, well too late he was already invited there and his assistance requested by the wife. So, in what archaic world do you think this officer lives in where the man says leave and he should just leave the other family members to be at the man's mercy?!

And since we keep hearing that it is not illegal to have a handgun in your home then the following must also hold true since in this state it is not illegal to be in possession of a weapon just about anywhere as long as you legally have acquired it. Next time Arnie goes out for a stroll in the park and the man next to him pulls out a gun I hope he does not want the police to respond. Because according to him if the man tells the police to go away they should just do that. No crime has been committed, and of course the police would just be overreacting if they assumed this man was going to hurt others. Maybe the man will just blow his brains out instead and what is the problem with that?! I am not naive enough to believe that power does not corrupt and I keep a watchful eye on authority and how it can be misused, but I think those jumping on the police officer here are misguided. I also can not judge too harshly Mr. Walters as it does appear he may have been suffering mental illness and from what I have read he does not appear to be a career criminal or someone with a history of total disregard to the lives of others. His consequences will hopefully be fair. For those blasting his church and family...come on. Our society is built on the premise that we forgive and that people can change, that they can learn from their mistakes. If every person that committed a wrong, immoral, or illegal action was put to death the human race would end because no one would live long enough to procreate!
-- Posted by none none on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 9:03 pm EST

report this comment


That's ok Tbone, no law in Vermont preventing you from sitting on your own bed with a gun. At least NOT YET. Seems the policeman thinks his authority goes a tad beyond common sense. Reminds me of Robert Woodward, he was a threat only to himself and was shot 7 times by two policemen. There are getting to be, way too many of these kind of stories. No doubt the police have a dangerous and thankless job, but that is no excuse to use a total lack of common sense and over step a person's Civil Rights in the truest sense of the meaning. The officer had countless other avenues of approach to the situation and he chose the wrong one that only escalated the situation. Mt Walters in my eyes is innocent of any wrong doing and I think has a case to sue and he should, Police need to know that every situation doesn't require a shooting or a Taser. He only had to step outside with the wife and wait. If Mr Walters had shot himself, wouldn't that have been the same outcome as the policement invoked? Good thing the policeman had too little time on the range and was a bad shot.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 7:37 pm EST

report this comment


I found the link to the video and i must apologize: he was sitting on bed with gun in hand when fist approached; here is the link: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20081120/NEWS/811200379
-- Posted by T BONE on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 7:23 pm EST

report this comment


I feel sorry for everyone involved in this situation. There is no happy ending or victory for anyone here.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 6:44 pm EST

report this comment


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

please examine other amendments: 5,6,& 8.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html , along with the rest of your birth rights as a U.S. citizen!

Also listen too the press release, the gun was not in his hand until after repeated attempts verbally ,and then wrestling, to get the cop out of his house before gun ever became an issue. And there was no talk of a suicide attempt either.

Fact:(according to press release) Wife called police because, he was depressed, and she was afraid after drinking with pain killers, he might try and ride his motorcycle. So if that is true, and he was over the legal limit to drive (maybe over the limit), he may not have even made it out of the driveway. and if he did make it out of the driveway, the cop could have arrested him without much incident for a D.U.I.. (no one I no can ride a motorcycle after drinking more than a couple of beers, without dumping it)

P.S. Never mind! I hope the next time i have a beer and some asprin wile i am depressed and THINKING about, going for a ride on my motorcycle to clear my head, a cop will come in to my home and shoot me insted.
-- Posted by T BONE on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 5:02 pm EST

report this comment


No! Comfy, I am not paranoid, being armed removes that. If anyone tries a Home Invasion at my home, it will be their last.

You all try to act like Judge and Juries with little information and the word gun seems to send you all into a tail spin.

From what I read Walters did nothing wrong. His wife called with a CONCERN. Police don't respond when children are several hours late getting home, no matter how concerned the parent is, not until they have been missing for 24 hours. Yet a concerned wife justifies entry, orders, wrestling match and a shootout?
The Officer knew when he arrived by Walters wife, that he may be dealing with someone who may be mentally incapacitated and yet he tried to order him to lay down his firearm. The officer even tried to wrestle the firearm away from him. Up to this point there was no threat from Walters. It is not a crime to be mentally unstable, it is not a crime to be sitting on your bed in your home, it is not a crime to have a 9mm nor is it justification for an officer to come into your home and start issuing orders. I think the officer made some poor judgement calls and Walters was guilty of only making his wife concerned.
The officer could have taken the wife outside and out of harm's way if he felt Mr Walters was a threat, he didn't. The officer could have radioed for assistance and for a Medical Team, he didn't. He chose to try and use force to take the firearm away.
The Officer, even though he wears a uniform executed poor judgement. Period.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 4:34 pm EST

report this comment


The guy who needs to sleep with a firearm next to his bed is calling other people paranoid. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 3:58 pm EST

report this comment


I suppose if I was an officer and somebody refused to put thier gun down when asked, I would be a little bit paranoid as well.
-- Posted by will gormly on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 2:52 pm EST

report this comment


"Mozzer wrote in an affidavit that when he went into the house at 9 River St., he found Walters sitting on a bed with a 9mm semiautomatic gun in his hand.

After unsuccessfully ordering Walters to put the gun down and a failed attempt to wrestle the gun away from him, Mozzer wrote that he opened fire on Walters after the Proctor man strode toward him with his gun pointed at the trooper."

It seems that from the officer's own words, he tried to order Walters to drop the firearm and then even tried wrestle the gun from him. Seems Walters didn't make any effort to shoot the officer during this part of the altercation. It wasn't until Walters approached the officer with gun in hand that the officer fired first, in the man's home. I see nothing in the above article that justifies what some of you are posting about Walters. Paranoia maybe...
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 1:50 pm EST

report this comment


At the risk of sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, I feel compelled to ask Mr. Hewitt a question:

What is it about Calvary Bible Church that bothers you so much that you assert its members should be ashamed?
-- Posted by M W on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 1:29 pm EST

report this comment


If his wife was afraid, she should have left with the Officer. Then where was the threat, too himself... and maybe you all agree that the Robert Woodward deserved to be shot by Police seven times, because he was in a church holding a pen knife to his own eye. Move back to the states whence you all came from.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 1:04 pm EST

report this comment


T BONE

I agree, the man was in his own home and even if his wife called with a concern, there was no action to justify any interference with him. If he asked them to leave, they should have left, period. Then if they felt they needed to go back in, a Warrant would have been proper.

A man has a right to defend his domain regardless and uniforms are not the Almighty Pass to enter. The policeman may have been acting out of compassion but proper protocol stills needs to be adhered to.

If this man is indeed in need of Medical Help, then his actions were justified and the Officer only provoked the situation by staying when asked to leave. Uniforms are not always the symbol of right, they are wrong as well, for they are as human as the rest of us.

Some of you are really walking around with your heads buried, elsewhere. You seem to feel that sitting on a bed with a 9mm is illegal and the next step is a massacre, what b.s.
I sit on my bed a lot with M1As, AR15s and Berretta 9mm as well as many otger firearms, I even have an AR15 locked and loaded next to my bed. What law am I breaking? P.S. remember you are in Vermont and not in paranoiaville Mass.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 1:01 pm EST

report this comment


A large part of LOVE IS holding someone accountable for their actions. Tough Love is LOVE, but NO love is not who we are at CBC. And, yes, often consequenses are what we deserve and often receive.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8
-- Posted by Wendy Preedom on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:47 am EST

report this comment


Oh yeah, drunk, disturbed, out of control and holding a 9mm semi automatic and the officer should have left him alone. Maybe he could have killed his whole family and then we could blame the officer for that too!
This is a terribly sad and tragic story that could have been a lot worse. His wife absolutely did the right thing by calling for police assistance. There couldn't have been any good outcome here and her call, along with the actions of officer Mozzer, likely saved lives.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:46 am EST

report this comment


When we are children we are taught right from wrong. When we become adults, we become responsible for our own actions. Our community has failed as a whole for feeling sorry for people like Walters. We allow small fines to be given for criminal offenses, and work crew for crimes that should land you in jail for more than one night. There is no fear of consequences in our community and our criminals are taking advantage of it.

As far as the Rutland Herald, the day you get a story right, without your liberal slant to everything, will be the day hell freezes over.

Hopefully Mr. Walters will let us know when that happens because that is where he is going.

Mr. Walter's live is a mess because of his own decisions. Hold him accountable....
-- Posted by Ethan Hewitt on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:37 am EST

report this comment


Seth Farley, I -Wendy Preedom - agree with pretty much everything that you have written.

I do NOT agree with all that Ethan Hewitt has written. His tone is offensive and assumptive. I am not a tyrant, I am a friend who sticks with friends even when it is tough.

AND Calvary Bible Church is NOT ashamed. If churches in general turn their back to sin, where would this world be? How would that reflect the God that we serve? Hate the sin, love the sinner. That is what Jesus did for me, who is also a sinner. John 3:16
-- Posted by Wendy Preedom on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:24 am EST

report this comment


Calvary Bible does NOT condone the choices of John Walters that terrible evening. Calvary is NOT raising money for his defense or his bond. Calvary Bible is very glad that the officer was not harmed that night and we have the most respect for law enforcement.

Calvary WILL however continue to love the family and John.

Ethan Hewitt, I hope that you will never be placed in the position to love and support an individual who has made such a mess of his own life and those he loves. How would you respond?
-- Posted by Wendy Preedom on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:15 am EST

report this comment


I'm with Mr. Hewitt on this one. T-Bone, if someone calls the police with even the slightest suggestion of disturbance or distress, the officer would not be doing his job if he did not enter the house to make sure everything is ok. This Walters character deserves to be and remain in jail so he can think about his foolish behavior and how he has affected the community as well as his family. If Mr. Walters was even half-sane he would have explained to the officer his problem and worked it out in a civil matter. Instead he gets shot and looks like an idiot. As far as Calvary Bible Church goes, they have the right and freedom to raise money to help support one of their members. As far as morales and principle goes, they should be opposed to this idea of letting a crazy man back on the streets. Let him think for a while and maybe he might come to a rational conclusion. Would it be gods will to physically attack and threaten the life of a law enforcement official? I'll let you answer that question for yourself.
-- Posted by Seth Farley on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:11 am EST

report this comment


@@&@
-- Posted by Wendy Preedom on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 10:49 am EST

report this comment


Your right T-Bone. Walters should have killed himself on his own and made the world a better place for all instead of trying to get law enforcement to do it for him. Too bad he is still alive. The tyrant is Calvary Bible Church and the persons who support it.
-- Posted by Ethan Hewitt on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 10:23 am EST

report this comment


I ask all of you too watch the police press release and listen very carefully too what they said. i had too listen to it a few times, and my findings are: 1)there was nothing to suggest that the officer had permission to enter the house 2)Walters repeatedly told officer too leave 3) then they wrestle 4) person in house without permission still does not leave, so owner resorts too last line of defense, and trespasser (cop) shot first! and this is all because Mrs. Walters was afraid he might get on his motorcycle after drinking. I'll bet she is sorry she called police. And I'll also bet she will think twice before calling again, even under the most extreme circumstances! CALVARY BIBLE : Please post a place too make donation and a time and place too protest this injustice!

"Resistace to tyrants is obedience to God." - Thomas Jefferson
-- Posted by T BONE on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 10:14 am EST

report this comment


Every member of Calvary Bible Church should be ashamed of themselves. Let him rot in jail where he belongs for the rest of his pathetic life.
-- Posted by Ethan Hewitt on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 8:59 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout