RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Trooper honored for valor in 2008 Proctor gunbattle



Sgt. Thomas Mozzer of North Clarendon visits with his daughters, Sidney and Karina, before being awarded the Medal of Honor and the Combat Cross at the Vermont State Police Awards Ceremony in Montpelier on Thursday.

Jeb Wallace-Brodeur / Times Argus
Toolbox

By THATCHER MOATS STAFF WRITER - Published: December 11, 2009

MONTPELIER – The Vermont State Police handed out its highest award on Thursday to a sergeant who was involved in a gunbattle in Proctor in November 2008.

During a ceremony at the Statehouse in Montpelier, Sgt. Thomas Mozzer received the Medal of Honor, which hasn't been awarded in decades.

On Nov. 19 of last year, Mozzer was checking on the welfare of Proctor resident John Walters and found him holding a handgun. Walters grew agitated, and he and Mozzer ended up fighting and exchanging fire. Mozzer shot Walters several times, though not fatally.

Once Walters was no longer a threat, Mozzer gave him medical aid and later helped Walters' 6-year-old daughter, safely shielding her while passing through the scene as he took her outside to her mother.

"The actions taken on that cold November night will be remembered for courage, calmness and compassion," said Col. Thomas L'Esperance, the top ranking officer in the Vermont State Police. There was "a violent physical struggle, which erupted into a gun battle and ended with Sgt. Tom Mozzer rendering assistance to a young child; truly a night to remember."

Mozzer, who works in the Rutland barracks, also was awarded the Combat Cross.

Mozzer was among 31 people given awards at the annual Vermont State Police Awards Ceremony for acts of courage and skill, such as solving major cases and pulling people from raging rivers and burning vehicles.

The awards were handed out by Gov. James Douglas, the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety Thomas Tremblay, and L'Esperance.

Douglas and Tremblay both acknowledged that for people in the public safety professions, the everyday heroics often go unnoticed but can be as important as those that warrant formal recognition.

"The greatest rewards of our noble profession, and the greatest rewards of our public service, are those moments in time that nobody else sees…," Tremblay said.

Three people were given awards for their work on the Pamela Brown murder case, including a detective with the Barre City Police Department.

Barre City Detective Hal Hayden was given the Director's Award for his work that led to the arrest of Theodore Caron, who was charged with Brown's murder earlier this year.

Brown was murdered in Barre in 1982 and her death went unsolved for 27 years until DNA evidence helped break the case.

Caron has pleaded innocent and his case is still pending.

Detective Sgt. Walter F. Smith and retired Detective Sgt. Charles Holden also were given the Director's Award for their work on the Brown case.

Peter Rubin, a 55-year-old Bennington man, attended the ceremony to thank the team of 10 people who saved his life.

Rubin was trapped inside a burning vehicle last May after he was in a head-on car crash on Route 9 in Bennington.

State police troopers, Bennington police officers, firefighters and paramedics responded to the scene and used fire extinguishers, bottled water and anything else they could get their hands on to put out the fire and save Rubin.

Rubin was airlifted to a hospital in Albany and later to a burn center where he was in critical condition.

Ten people were given Lifesaving Awards Thursday for rescuing Rubin.

Walking with a cane and still bearing the marks of his injuries, Rubin stood next to Douglas, Tremblay and L'Esperance as the police and rescue workers received the awards.

Rubin said he attended the ceremony to honor the people who saved him, some of whom he hadn't had a chance to meet.

"It was a close call in many ways and their courage and skill got me through," Rubin said.

The members of the Vermont State Police who are deploying to Afghanistan with the Vermont National Guard were recognized at the beginning of the ceremony.

They are Sgt. Walter Smith, Trooper Matthew Hill, Trooper Jerry Partin, Trooper Brian Tallmadge, Trooper George Rodriguez and Trooper Cathy Capetta.








READER COMMENTS


Once again here is the Sworn Affidavit and not a herald distorted story or a Burlington Free Press distorted Story.
I was entertained when I read the BFP and found many stats had been altered or totally changed from what was written in the Herald and from what the Sworn Affidavit said. The BFP story is below and the Herald is above.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/assets/pdf/RH600911120.PDF
-- Posted by Name Change on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 6:24 am EST

report this comment


As I remeber the herald articles about this when it happened. Wife called SPD because the man was driving and she was concerned for him etc. I think it might have been reported he was distraut and or drinking.

When SPD got their the man came back and was holding a gun in his room. He was asked by SPD to come out which he did with no gun. The SPD tropper tried to call for backup, however, his radio apparently didn't work in the house. The SPD trooper then went to cuff (subdue) the man and the man managed to get away and then an apparent shootout occured.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, 8:57 pm EST

report this comment


Quote: ...it is about one case in his career and how I believe he used poor judgment..."

Um-yeah right. Just ONE case in which he used poor judgment? Think again....he is no different from the rest of 'em. It's quite the group of VSP's we have...mishandling, cover-up's, excessive use of force...
-- Posted by Justice None on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, 6:57 pm EST

report this comment


Comfy

And you have to wonder why people give you sh**?
You run around like a jerk, never offering any form of a debate, but picking and choosing who you will throw your insults at.You get back just what you deserve.
Understand something Comfy, respect is earned and you don't get a lot of it, because you don't earn it.
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, 6:27 pm EST

report this comment


Hey,let's lay off Mozzer. We will probably be needing him back in Proctor, since the idiots at the library hung the stolen painting back up.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, 4:25 pm EST

report this comment


Chris, I suspect that NC had training in law enforcement (as a security guard) 37 years ago and was fired shortly thereafter.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, 3:47 pm EST

report this comment


From the Burlington Free Press, 14 Dec 2009

It seems that only the Sworn Affidavit is consistent. The BFP claims "State police described the case this way" Mr Walters was UPSTAIRS, says it was Mrs Walters who made the call, says Mr Walters rushed Sgt Mozzer, and the event is exaggerated and the 6 year old daughter is now a son.

So you see Chris, I prefer to get the information from the Sworn Affidavit, all other sources may change, unless in court and it is a sworn testimony, and even then that can be misleading.

from the Dec 14, 2009 BFP
"MONTPELIER

The award recipients:

Sgt. Thomas A. Mozzer Jr. won the prestigious and rarely given medal of honor and the combat cross for his role in an November 2008 incident. State police described the case this way: Mozzer responded to a call from a Proctor woman worried about her husband, found him in an upstairs bedroom holding a handgun. The man rushed Mozzer, fled then returned to the room and exchanged gunfire with Mozzer, who halted the man with non-life-threatening wounds. Mozzer tended to the man's wounds, then helped the couple's 6-year-old son out of the house."
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, 6:21 am EST

report this comment


Name Change.

I am so sorry for the assumption that you have 37 years. Your post said that you were trained 37 years ago at the federal level. The second said 30 years and still serving. My error. Please forgive me so i can get some sleep tonight.
-- Posted by Chris Power on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 7:57 pm EST

report this comment


Chris

You are poor with facts and poor at retention, I never said 37 years and still serving.
-- Posted by Name Change on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 5:01 pm EST

report this comment


Chris

I do want to say, I enjoy talking to you, and I want you to have a Merry Christmas.

All I accomplished from you, was I learned of your background and you are lousy at debating. I would have preferred to have had a professional debate with you, I am sorry you feel so insulted by the presentation of facts.

Merry Christmas
-- Posted by Name Change on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 4:10 pm EST

report this comment


and Comfy

You said "He will never stop insisting that his delusions are the only possible reality and everyone who disagrees with him is ignorant, wrong, socialist, and whatever else NC decides to label them."

So it would be Chris Powers and yourself doing what you claim and what are you when you disagree with me? Or are you the one who is always Right and everyone else is wrong?
Numbers doesn't mean right. The whole world use to think the world was FLAT and the whole world was proven to be worng by one man.
I do not force anyone to agree with me, but I do not find a need to alter my views just because it would be popular to do so, I try to read betwen the lines and see the facts as they are written and not as they are precieved. I see you rather judge a book by its cover. No wonder you are so well informed, you never open the book and read it.
-- Posted by Name Change on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 4:05 pm EST

report this comment


Well Well Chris

I see when you meet someone who feels that Police are notabove doing wrong and in their line of work, a poor judgment call can have dire consquences, as this one has, I am a jerk. You retort to name calling and that is suppose to prove your point more so?

You never answered a single one of my questions and you did not address any of the points made, you only kept trying to pry my past as if that had an effect on the night of Nov 19, 2008. come on Mr Powers, I showed restraint from name calling and I actually quoted and provided a source.
What point did I make that is wrong and why? Please elaborate, after all if I being labeled a Jerk by you, I would like to know the reasons. You tap dance well.


David None

I actually have respect and a lot of admiration for the Vermont State Police, that doesn't mean that I believe that they are not able to make bad judgment call.

I also do not believe for a minute that the Man from Kenya deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

Just ask yourseves what crime was commited, what law was broken that caused a married man to now be facing 20 to life and be shot?
The call of CONCERN was made by a neighbor at 2137 hours and Sgt Mozzer arrived at 2250 hrs. When he arrived the cause of the concern, was still parked in the driveway, so anyone care to offer the basis for Sgt Mozzer to enter the home and seek out Mr Walters? I thought not.
Anyone care to tell me, what law or what crime was committed?
The affidavit is there for all to read. You people all were bashing Bush for the Patriot Act and yet this act has recieved a round of applause from some of you.

Comfy
Do you ever speak the topic? You also lie. You strongly implied I said all those things about you, when in fact I have only said you were a gay, black man.
-- Posted by Name Change on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 3:58 pm EST

report this comment


Name Change.

I am so bored with you now that I dont even read your novel anymore. You lost me at the 37 years and still serving. I am still curious what federal agency you trained with. I am assuming by your extreme secrecy that you must be CIA or NSA. Either way I am now very bored with you. To the people that have offered positive feedback, thank you. I have got to say that In my 20 years I have met more wonderful people than I have met jerks. Unfortunately it seems that a good percent of the latter tend to be the ones that comment here on law enforcement issues.

Whatever.
-- Posted by Chris Power on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 3:31 pm EST

report this comment


With two young daughters like he has, I'd look for a less dangerous line of work...
People like some here really make being in law enforcement a drag.
To all the people in law enforcement and related professions that read these forums, I think the vast majority of us offer our thanks and respect...
Keep up the good work and stay safe.
-- Posted by Dave None on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 12:59 pm EST

report this comment


I see the Monday Morning Bashers are back and all accounted for. ROFLMAO

Notta, To be correct, I have over 30 years and YES! still serving.
Yes! again,I have had two names, my current and NoneNone.
ROFLMAO is as common as your arrogance.
Yes! I was trained 37 years ago in Federal Law Enforcement.

None of the above matters when reading the Sworn Affidavit neither does the experience of Chris Powers have anything to do with the Sworn Affidavit. What does matter is what you read and what you precieve as legal actions and improper actions.

Here is a quote from the State Police Mission Statement
"The Vermont State Police are a solution oriented law enforcement agency whose mission is to fairly and aggressively enforce laws, reinforce public trust, and inspire public confidence. Troopers will perform their duties following the values of Honesty, Loyalty, Professionalism, Integrity, Courage, and Respect."

Chris

I beg to differ with you once again, regardless of what you presume, the state police is indeed a REACTIONARY FORCE. Up until not too many years ago, there sole purpose was with the Dept of Motor Vehicles and to enforce Motor Vehicle Laws. Their presence and their visibility is all that they have for PREVENTION. Yes! anyone and everyone is entitled to shoot to kill to protect Life or property and that includes all of us, in the State of Vermont.

You finally mentioned it was the Concerned neighbor who called the police. Finally, one step at a time you acknowledge what I am saying. It wasn't even Mrs Walters who called.
There is nothing in the affidavit that says anything about a fight. So was the fight presumed by the neighbor, because it isn't in the affidavit when it mentions what Mrs Walters says. Mrs Walters says to "go easy on him" Sounds like something a women who is fighting would say?
Once again Mr Power, please explain what Sgt Mozzer was responding to? The affidavit seems to only say "at 11/19/08 at 2137 hours Rutland dispatch recieved a call from Wendy Freedom who stated that she was calling for her friend, Grace Walters, Freedom stated that grace's husband John had drank a lot of wine and taken prescrition meds and they were afraid that he was going to leave on his motorcycle."

Nowhere do I see support for your statement "Again if you are confused do some research specific to individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others."
I do not see any mention of threats, endangerment to himself or to anyone for that matter, only a concern from the neighbor that he may get on his motorcycle, which 73 minutes after the call was made, did NOT happen.
So what was Sgt Mozzer RESPONDING to? What was his purpose at this point? What grounds did ne make his decision to enter the home? Who is to say that Mr Walters did not feel there was a "Home Invasion" happening. We have all read about police imposters and home invasions, so who is to say what was going through Mr Walters mind. He was not acting violent and he was not vocally throwing threats. So what did Sgt Mozzer say or did he just jump behind the door and start issuing commands?
If Mr Walters was so threatening then why did he walk down the hall, unarmed and then get jumped by Sgt Mozzer? Mr Power, you call that neccessary? If Mr Walters even slightly thought this was a home invasion, then this would have been the frosting. Mr Walters knew he had broken no laws and suddenly there is a guy dressed in a uniform, standing in his hallway by his bedroom, taking cover and demanding that he get rid of his gun. Maybe later he did think he was a real cop, until he was jumped.
I can not understand how anyone can justify Sgt Mozzer's actions.
He arrived 73 minutes after the call of CONCERN and not a Complaint call.
When he arrived the concern was clearly not present, for the motorcycle was still parked there.

So far these are facts, agree?

He speaks to Mrs Walters and is told upon expressing his intent to enter, to take it easy on MR Walters. Yet Sgt Mozzer decides to go, without backup or without anyone trained to talk with him. He goes a distance into the house, not just over the threshold and he does so with no laws having been broken, no crimes committed and at this point I ask you Mr Power, under what conditions is a detainment mentioned or are you translating that is what Sgt Mozzer is intending to do?
Sgt Mozzer was told prior to entering the home, by Mrs Walters "he is depressed, taking meds and they are having financial problems" still nothing about fights, arguments or any violent behavior whatsoever. Yet my deaf ears don't seem to comprehend your logic that Sgt Mozzer was acting properly. I say he wasn't. Regardless of his intent Sgt Mozzer is the person responsiblle for the outcome, if he had not entered that home, the outcome would have not been what it is.

Mr Walters for doing nothing more than sitting on his bed, drinking some wine and taking some meds (which are not named and the type of meds would be important) and being agitated by an unwelcomed Police officer, who may have been a home invader wearing a uniform.
Once again, Chris laws are written for everyone to understand and everyone is capable of understanding their rights, I really don't care what your background is and it is realy irrevelant in this disccusion. I respect your background and I am interested in your responses.
Once again, I am NOT challenging Sgt Mozzer's Honor, Pride, Honesty, Intent, Intigerty or how great of a guy he might be. I am challenging that another man's life has been pretty well destroyed because of what I feel was a poor judgment call in ONE circumstance. We all can't be 100% perfect all the time, now can we Mr Power? We all make mistakes, unless of course you are God. So mistakes can be and have been made by the State Police, correct?
When a person earns a Medal as high as the Medal of Honor, anyone who reads the attached citation should be able to clearly see how deservingthe individual is, I do not.

Now if Sgt Mozzer has been requested to leave several times and he has told Mr Walters, several times he only wants to speak to him and put the firearm down. Then I would think that even in Basic Police Training 101, Sgt Mozzer should have realized, his method or intent was NOT going to work. Time to step back outside, call it in and regroup. Now wouldn't you think that would have been the proper thing to do, instead of continuing to go at it alone, when you have already recieved hints as big as Mt Mansfield that your method wasn't working?


There was a moment where it was working in Sgt Mozzer's favor and once again Sgt Mozzer altered the results of that moment. The moment was when Mt Walters came out of the bedroom and Sgt Mozzer determined he was unarmed. I woul dthink at this point, if Sgt Mozzer had been gentle and allowed MR Walters to continue even to outside with him, then we would have had a whole differeent ending result, instead Sgt Mozzer used poor judgment again, by trying to place him in custody. Why? for what purpose? What law was broken, who was bing endangered othetr than Mr Walters?
When Sgt Mozzer used poor judgment a second time was when the scuffle ensued and we all know from there what happened, at least the ones who read the Sworn Affidavit know. Everyone else is just posting garble.
-- Posted by Name Change on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 11:06 am EST

report this comment


I got pulled over by mozzer once, he was quite civil, seemed pretty friendly. How did he manage to wrestle anything out of anyone's hand? I am of average height guy and I felt like I could have swatted him like a fly. He is like 5'6" and 130lbs
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 7:43 am EST

report this comment


Chris,

Don't waste your time arguing with the name-changer. He must be well over 100 years old as he's now a former federal officer and has been a 30 year service man and also claims to still be in the service as an Iraq vet. He's had several names here as his current pseudonym implies but his ROFLMAO gives him away every time. Nobody would be stupid enough to use such a tired and boring acronym but someone who has a fixation on it.

Thank you for your service as a trooper, Chris. Most Vermonters aren't as lawless, argumentative or so foolish as to keep a gun at the head of their bed like OJ/Arnie/None None/Name-Changer. Then again, guys like him, who like to make themselves sound as silly as this one does, can be counted on to do a lot of stupid things, are probably paranoid enough to think they "need" access to a weapon at all times while most of us make do with locking them up in a hidden part of the barn or other safe places.
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 12:17 am EST

report this comment


Peacefully Evl: You have brought up good point and that is don't rely on the police to handle something you can handle yourself. Stay out of the system if at all possible.
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 9:25 pm EST

report this comment


Mr. Name Change,
IT MUST TAKE YOUR WIFE, BOTH HANDS, BOTH LEGS AND A WHOLE HOUR, TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!!
Enough said.
-- Posted by capttam on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 8:42 pm EST

report this comment


A similar story happened in Maine a year or two ago, except the distraught man was terminated by responding police. The man was living at his parents' home-- they are the ones who called, under the mistaken impression that calling the authorities was the right thing to do. Now their son is dead.

Unlike VT, however, Mainers have the decency to not hand out awards to the assailing officers.
..
-- Posted by mark on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 7:16 pm EST

report this comment


Chris, it is always like that when you try to have a reasonable conversation with NC. It simply can't be done. He will never stop insisting that his delusions are the only possible reality and everyone who disagrees with him is ignorant, wrong, socialist, and whatever else NC decides to label them. I have already been a gay man, a white woman married to a black man, a Chardonay sipping trust fund baby, a lesbian, a socialist, a welfare queen, a flatlander who moved here so that I could tell the "real Vermonters" how to live, a black man who is in VT to prey upon the white women, a drug dealer, and in this post, I am (according to NC) a brown nose who congratulated Sgt Mozzer only because I want to get out of a speeding ticket.
I am sure that as soon as I hand any officer my license with my on line pseudonym on it instead of my name, said officer will immediately remember this post in the RH and give me special treatment!
Welcome to the world of NC. It's not a pretty place.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 1:59 pm EST

report this comment


Name Change
You might be interested in a website that touches upon many of the points you have made in this past discussion. Go to rightsourceonline.com and click on the link to the Pro Libertate blog. Award winning author William Grigg has been discussing these and similar issues for quite some time. He just published a book Liberty in Eclipse: Rise of the American Homeland Security State. Well researched and well written.
-- Posted by nh forester on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 9:01 am EST

report this comment


"Your assumption that the police is a reactionary force is not accurate. If that was the case the police would simply sit in a barracks or station and wait for crime to happen. They would not patrol, arrest drunk drivers or dangerous drivers and only come to homes after the person has killed themself or others."

Chris, more often than not the police force is reactionary. It reacts to crimes that have been committed. In many cases the reaction is wholly appropriate and will help prevent further crimes. But, the fact remains that police officers react to a situation. Driving drunk is a crime. Detaining a drunk driver is reacting to a crime. By detaining that drunk driver, the police officer may be preventing further crimes, such as a fatal or injurious accident. It is still reacting to a crime. The alternative would be to arrest every person walking out of a bar on the suspicion that he/she might be drunk and might be intending to drive. We don't do that.

In this situation, to my mind there are far too many unanswered questions. The affidavit says Mozzer walked through the house. Did he call out to Mr. Walters to alert Walters he was present? Did he call out that Walters' wife was worried about his well being and he (Mozzer) wanted to talk to him and make sure he was ok? Or did he simply walked quietly through the house and then come up on the man. I imagine, as Mozzer, it would have been quite the surprise to find Walters sitting in the room with a gun, considering Mrs. Walters specifically said there were no weapons inside. I can understand if Mozzer was startled and began working from a different set of procedures. However, the fact remains that even Mozzer admits Walters was not pointing the gun at him initially, and uttered no threats. Walters simply asked Mozzer to leave. I don't know the protocols and procedures for such situations, but considering there was no outright threat, and both persons were probably startled, it seems the better decision would have been to leave the vicinity and deal with it in a different manner. Perhaps even from a hostage situation. I wonder whether Mozzer would have entered the house had he known there was a gun in the house. I would imagine he wouldn't have, because he couldn't be sure of Walters state of mind or whereabouts of the gun. So, if he would have kept himself out of the situation given full knowledge, why would he not do his best to remove himself from the situation when presented the opportunity. The fact is Walters did not threaten Mozzer in any way, until partway through the altercation. In fact, he walked out of his room without the weapon, whereupon he was attacked.

It is true that possessing a firearm in the presence of a police officer is foolish. And if the officer tells you to drop the weapon, regardless of whether you have committed a crime, the only sensible thing to do is to drop the weapon. Any other action is going to be interpreted as threatening. However, it must also be noted that the entire reason for Mozzer's visit was the worry over Walters state of mind, which immediately warns all those involved that he is perhaps not thinking logically. If it is the case that police officers should almost immediately turn to violence when faced with a citizen who is not in a right state of mind, then I certainly would not ever want anyone to call the police to help me if I were feeling depressed. Those in a depressed state of mind do not think with the same logic as those who are not in a depressed state of mind.

Considering what facts I can gather from the affidavit and original report on this case, I find the whole thing very sad. A man may very well spend the rest of his life in prison because he was depressed and made a poor decision. And an officer is being rewarded for escalating a situation to the point where shots were fired. The whole thing is just sad, and does nothing to instill more trust in the police force.
-- Posted by Peacefully Evyl on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 8:59 am EST

report this comment


Moral of the story: If a person that is an armed officer shows up at your door, the chances of you being unharmed if you cooperate are better than your chances of harm if you answer with force. And once again we see the benefits of alcohol and drugs when mixed with violence. Many times this mixture ends in someone being harmed or even murdered.
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 8:28 am EST

report this comment


The fact that the Sgt was called to answer a complaint at the house and appears in his uniform with his squad car, identifies himself as an officer and tells the subject to loose the gun, speaks a lot. Put yourselves in the officers shoes. A man with a gun doesn't respond to any of that and has a weapon, It would be negligence on the officer's part to leave.
As for the award most officers deserve an award for their service for putting up with all sorts of problems and people just so that the rest of us can sleep at night and enjoy the order that their actions bring.
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 8:20 am EST

report this comment


name change.

I guess that my numerous attempts to explain several things are falling on deaf ears. You do not have to break a law to be detained. Again if you are confused do some research specific to individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others. I feel that I have explained that fully to you. There are situations where you can not just order the police to leave. We are duty bound not to. This was one. Look at the totality of the circumstances. You seem to be stuck on the affidavit. Again that is used to establish probable cause for a specific charge or charges.
Your assumption that the police is a reactionary force is not accurate. If that was the case the police would simply sit in a barracks or station and wait for crime to happen. They would not patrol, arrest drunk drivers or dangerous drivers and only come to homes after the person has killed themself or others. Not when a concerned party calls and hears their neighbors fighting, knows that their husband or wife or child is despondent and may hurt themselves etc. There are times that the police are a reactionary force. Until the future can be predicted this will always be the case. There is nothing to step back and regroup for. You indicated that I was uneducated or ignorant. Credentials lend credibility to a person who claims to profess knowledge about a subject. You continue to profess training and experience but have not backed it up at all. It is not king of the hill but is all about credibility. I think the general public reading this would be interested in what expertise you posess. You asked me if I have only book knowledge. Unfortunately I have had far too many actual negotiations. They range from a despondent person barricaded in his home to a person who has attempted to kill his or her significant other. I think that this lends credibility to my position in this matter. Either way I have spent more time on this than I would like to.
-- Posted by Chris Power on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 8:11 am EST

report this comment


Rutland Cutizen says......"I love seeing how you have nothing better to do than quote the constitution and actually believe what your saying is right."

HUH!? Is believing in what our constitution says politically and/or morally incorrect? Holy Moly!! I hope you don't really think that way!

The man had laid his weapon down and was coming out of the bedroom. Was he giving up. Who instigated the next move? I think the state will have a tough time getting a conviction!
-- Posted by Roy Amsden on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 7:17 am EST

report this comment


TG

Just think TG, with the current outcome, there needs be no imagination, a man was shot, faces 20 to life and his family will be forever changed.
Now what kind of outcry would you be referring to? You are only speculating that something terrible was going to happen, without Sgt Mozzer showing up.
You are justifying the current outcome with a remote and imaginative outcome.
Sorry! I see the current outcome far worse that what may or may not have happened.
Mrs Walters never made any comment that she was concerned with Mr Walters taking his life or anyone else s. You speculate that why? because he is sitting on the bed with a gun? So if I am sitting in my living room, arguing with my wife as I clean my rifle and an officer walks my, you are saying he has a right to kick my door in and arrest me or shoot me, BECAUSE I may have shot my wife?
Paranoia is running rampant and prejudging is as well. It seems some people don't mind the Police in your face at every move and actually invite it. I see now why this country is turning socialist and I can see curfews, police have ultimate power over the people, because some people cower behind their wild imaginations and justify police acting out of their roles.
I am sorry,no matter how many times I read that Sworn affidavit, I still come up that it was a bad situation resulting from good intent and poor judgment by the police officer.
Normally a Search warrant is necessary to stay beyond a WELCOME. Sgt Mozzer was NOT welcomed and was asked to leave several times by the homeowner. The reason for the Officer to be summoned was non existent upon his arrival, his duty stopped there. He was to react and there was nothing to react to, until he created the situation that gave us this topic.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 7:16 am EST

report this comment


Name Change:
You did well. Nice sound logic - no name calling and always referring to the facts and the topic at hand.
-- Posted by nh forester on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 10:47 pm EST

report this comment


Chris Powers, Bravo!!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 9:27 pm EST

report this comment


Imagine the outcry had there been no follow up on this and a despondent, intoxicated man hurt himself or family member(s).
-- Posted by T G on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 8:31 pm EST

report this comment


What's fundamentally disturbing here is not only the uncertainty of this confused incident, but that the State's response is to REWARD the trooper's gun-play. I think this kind of award should be given to the officer who shows up and resolves a situation WITHOUT bloodshed.

In the time I've lived in VT, a disturbing number of people have been killed by police under confused and vague circumstances.

In this case, this medal becomes one of "dishonor" as far as I am concerned. I don't know if we can second guess the events of that night, but I'm not seeing a clear reason to hand out an award so prestigious that it hasn't been given in decades. If the mission of police is to protect and serve, I'm wondering who was being protected that night-- other than the trooper himself.
.
-- Posted by mark on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 7:00 pm EST

report this comment


Northstar

The wife was outside and the husband never came in, Sgt Mozzer went inside the home, leaving Mrs Walters outside and he went through a hall etc and found Mr Walters sitting on a bed in a bedroom. Your first paragraph is inaccurate. Go to the link and read the Affidavit.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 6:20 pm EST

report this comment


Northstar

One of the residents did NOT call the VSP it was a friend and only the friend mentions the drinking, Mrs Walters said nothing of the sort, nor did she call the VSP and it has not been established if she actually asked her friend to call. The concern was riding his motorcycle, period.

There is also no mention that Mrs Walters said Sgt Mozzer could go inside and regardless if she did, the homeowner inside, who had not broken any laws, asked Sgt Mozzer to leave several times.

How would YOU feel, if you were in your bedroom cleaning your gune and you looked up and saw an officer jump behind a door and start commanding you to drop the gun? What would go through your mind? Who called him? Does he have the right house? Is he thinking he has someone else? What is this show of agression about? What have I done wrong? Who invited him into my home? What is he doing here? etc etc.
Sgt Mozzer made the situation something that it wasn't by merely trying to be a good guy. Everything AFTER that has caused a major disruption in a families' life and man goes to prison for 20 to life, when if in fact he was under meds and wine, I would have instantly thought, that his judgment and reasoning may be impaired and I should not try and handle the whatever the situation was, by trying to go in and show the presense of a uniform and badge etc etc. I would have tried a friend or a relative first, I think Chris learned that as a Hostage Negotiator.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 6:18 pm EST

report this comment


Oh and Chris

Sgt Mozzer, looks like a loving father and great guy. I am aware that he didn't make Sgt because he is a sh**bird either. I am not debating his character, his loyalty, his risks, his intent, his honor, his pride or even his intigerty. IT is one night, one situation and one outcome, that I am debating. Remember, it may sound like an insult to Sgt Mozzer, but Mr Walters may be seperated from his family an dbehind bars for the rest of his life and I have to ask, for what?
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 6:00 pm EST

report this comment


Comfy

I will only say one thing to you, Mrs Walters DID NOT call the police. A friend called the police at 2137 hours and over an hour later, Sgt Mozzer arrived. When he arrived that 73 minutes later, the concern of Mr Walters leaving on the motorcycle had not materialized. I would think if he was going to, he would have. So Sgt Mozzer, upong arriving 73 minutes later, should have acknowledged the fact the motorcycle was till there, asked if there was nay further concerns and if there wasn't he should have left. We can not erase what happened, we can only look back at the facts and make judgments for future reference. What I do not see is the qualification that the Police Officer gets a Medal of Honor and the homeowner is facing 20 to Life, for what? If you could rewind the tape of that night, at what point did it become volatile and why? How could it have been avoided? Remove Sgt Mozzer from the scene and would the situation have ended violently or with a man passing out on his bed?
I have handled a firearm on my bed, I'll bet well over 1000 times in my life, maybe more, considering overseas I pretty well slept with one.


I see no complaint of aggression, I see no aggressive actions by Mr Walters and I see no concerns there is going to be any aggression or has been.

Before you jump in and add your two cents, please read the Affidavit, carefully, you might answer your own questions.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 5:56 pm EST

report this comment


I've got to say that I stand with Sgt. Mozzer. THe VSP is called to the home by one of the residents. She is concerned that her husband has been drinking and may be planning on getting out on the highway. The wife invites you into the home. While you are speaking to the wife regarding the details of the call her husband comes in and tells you to leave. I beleive that you are completely in the right by continuing the investigation.

Suppose the trooper left and the next morning the story read enraged man kills wife and daughter. It was the troopers responsibility to determine if the individual was indeed a danger to himself, his wife, daughter or anyone else. The minute he pointed a weapon at the trooper he stuck a target on his chest. Only a fool would stand and try to negotiate with an unstable may with \ gun pointed at them. The trooper did exactly what he was trained to do.

I love to listen to monday morning quarterbacks who make judgements days or weeks after the incident. Try wearing that uniform and confronting people that you don't know who are in various levels of mental stability, possibly impaired by alcohol or drugs and in some cases armed. I am happy to have men and women like Sgt. Mozzer out there looking out for me.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 5:41 pm EST

report this comment


Chris

Like I said I respect your loyalty, but fully beleive you are misisng some valid points and your experience only makes you more loyal and possibly blind to the fact that the situation per the information on the Sworn Affidavit is an invasion of Rights.

Once again..

1. Mr Walters was not breaking any laws if so please explain which ones.

2. Last I knew if a homeowner has asked you to leave and no laws are being broken and there is no imient danger to anyone, which there wasn't, you leave.

3. Mr Mozzer was asked several times by a home owner that per the Sworn Affidavit was not showing a threat to anyone and was sitting on his bed with a firearm. He was not point the firearm nor was he giving any verbal threats. Sgt Mozzer took aggressive defensive action by moving to behind walls and giving out orders. I, would be greatly offended, I did not ask Sgt Mozzer to enter my home and a wife is only half of the equation. It was clear to see that Mrs Walters concerns about the motorcycle were not materializing. No doubt , Sgt Mozzer entered the home with good intent. Does Sgt Mozzer have a minor or a major in minor in psychology or in any subject that would make him qualified to enter a home, onto another man's turf and try and be able to fully control any situation that would arise from him doing so? It doesn't matter what YOU have, it matters what Sgt Mozzer has and what his job capacity was when he arrived at the Walter's residence. So your credentials are totally irrevelant as are mine. What is revelant is the Sworn Affidavit and the facts revealed in them.
I respect your credentials and great for you. I am not sharing mine with you, for we are not playing King of any mountain, but debating, without favors the circumstances that got a man shot and possibly incarcerated for the rest of his natural life. That is the issue.

4. Do you or do you NOT agree that the State Police is a REACTIONARY FORCE? Would you then tell me, what Sgt Mozzer was reacting to, if the motorcycle was still parked in the yard and no laws were being broken?

5. Is it or is it not against the law to sit on your own bed, in your own home with a hand gun or a rifle, regardless if you have had a drink and taken meds or not?

6. Explain to me what situation was Sgt Mozzer trying to deescalate, by commanding Mr Walters to drop his gun? Would you walk up to a hunter and command him to drop his gun, if you wanted to talk to him? Would you approach him and then jump behind a tree and take cover and command the hunter to drop his gun, so you can talk to him? Do you know what Chris, you can probably get a Bear to respond to you better with a jar of honey than you can with a whip.

7. It was 2250 just how much longer do you think Mr Walters was going to be awake. Let's see 50 years old, a few Wines or one wine, and meds, I don't think a State Policeman would be able to fully understand what the mixture of meds and wine would have unless he had some Pharmaceutical training. maybe more than some. actually, according to the Sworn Affidavit, it was a friend of Mrs Walters who said he had drank LOTSA of wine and how would she know. Mrs Walters only said he was depressed, had taken meds and had finicial troubles with no mention of drinking. I do not even see in the SWORN STATEMENT where Mrs Walters gives Sgt Mozzer permission to enter. I see more of a gesture by Sgt Mozzer to be a good policeman to enter and see if he can help. I do not see where entering was a requirement by the existing circumstance. It is also clear that Sgt Mozzer had decided to enter even with knowledge that the Motorcycle was outside and no laws are being broken or have been broken. I am confused why Sgt Mozzer felt compiled to enter and ask if there were guns prior to doing so.

Understand Chris, I do not question Sgt Mozzer's motives, I question his judgment in this and this situation alone. This is not about hating cops or hating the police etc. There is a clear right and wrong and regardless if a person wears a uniform or not, the rights and wrongs are the same.

You have a right to an opinion, regardless of your background and everyone else does as well. I am basing opinions on what is written in the Sworn Affidavit and how I would feel as a homeowner if I looked up and saw a policeman standing in my hallway and then jumping behind a door and commanding me to drop my firearm, I would be offended because I handle my firearms all of the time and unless the Man from Kenya has taken my Gun Rights away, I am breaking no laws in doing s and if I ask you to leave, if I haven't broken a law, than I expect you to leave, regardless.

I knew Fred very well and I knew his wife's family and the related tragedy etc. and I did not say he left, per quit, I know he became an arson inspector. He did not get the Medal of Honor and was his deed worthy based on Sgt Mozzer's example?

Chris you need to back up and regroup. I am not saying that the men and women in the state police aren't worthy of recognition nor am I saying they don't risk their lives. I am talking about a judgment call in one situation. I do not think Sgt Mozzer made the proper decisions and I do not think Mr Walters deserves what that Sworn Affidavit is trying to convict him of. He was on his own property and and as he wlked unarmed up the hallway he was jumped by a policemen fro actually breaking no laws. I would be pi&&ed as well and I am sure you would be too, you runiform doesn;t give you the franchised on being the only ones to be pi&&ed or defending yourselves. Our lives are just as important to us as yours are to you. I think you are missing the point and defending the Moral Character of the police force is not the issue at hand, nor are my or your credentials, you do not prove points by seeing who has the biggest dic*.
You have 7 years as a Hostage Negotiator, how many actual Hostage negotiations did you partake in? Books are worthless in actual situations, you are writing a new chapter everytime and books only become reference and training is what allows you to make the good decision from both sources, the book and the actual experience. If you have only half of the equation, you may not always have the correct results in the action.
There is no proof, whatsoever that Mr Walters was a danger to anyone. Remember that Sgt Mozzer was called because Mr Walter's wife or friend of his wife was concerned. I am not even sure if Mrs Walters knew that her friend had called.

8. Do you not respond to a missing person until after 24 hours? or is it longer? Yet you justify responding to something that hasn't happened, before it happens. Once again are the Police not a Reactionary Force? The only prevention that they are authorized is their appearance by patrolling etc? Correct me if I am wrong. So if there is no laws broken, then under what pretext did Sgt Mozzer enter the home, other than good intent? What was Sgt Mozzer justification once in the home, under good intent did he have to command or even tackle Mr Walters?

10. My last question, knowing that Mr Walters was a Professional, Pharmacist and had an decent education to aquire that role, then it would be proper to assume that Mr Walters was fully aware of what he had drank and what he had taken and what the side effects would be. Did anyone ask him? Did anyone try and just talk to him, before commanding orders to drop a gun that he was lawfully holding and not threatening anyone with? Did anyone considered talking smoothly and sinscerely or is fear in police gotten so bad, that their judgment has gotten clouded to the point that anyone with a gun is a threat and needs to be taken out? Remember, Chris, Sgt Mozzer was inside of Mr Walter's home and no laws have been broken and it was extremely clear that the very reason why he was called, had not materialized. The motorcycle was parked outside and even Mrs Mozzer had requested, upon her learning that Sgt Mozzer wanted to enter the building to go EASY on him. Does that sound like Mrs Wlaters felt there was any threats or abuse? Please Chris, help me understand the logic behind Sgt Mozzer's motive, not you rloyalty to a brother in arms, but the motive based on FACTS in the Sworn Affidavit.

Thank You and I refuse to have a ******* contest with you.

In a much earlier post, you wrote "report came into the VSP that the complainant felt that the defendant could be a danger to himself or others, specifically his child who also happend to be in the house."

There was no complainant. Wendy Freedom said and I quote (from the SWORN AFFIDAVIT) Wendy and Grace were afraid he was going to leave on his motorcycle. So where was his motorcycle? Where was Mr Walters? Guess he didn't leave then did he? Guess the concern had not materialized, unless I am reading the Sworn Affidavit wrong. Sgt Mozzer, should have Immobilized the motorcycle and removed Mrs Walters and and the Invisible child from the location. Mrs Walters could have gone into the house and gotten the child, unless she was afraid for her life, but I see no mention of that, do you?
Once again, the debate is on the issue of this and only this situation and not Sgt Mozzer's career, good intentions or whatever. We have had fellows have Court Martials for jumping the gun and I do not see where the Police force within the bundaries of the State of Vermont should be treated differently than a man in combat. You make a poor judgment call, then you should be put on stage the same as we are. I do not see the justification in a Medal of Honor, no matter how hard I look. I am sorry, those are the facts as I see them and as you see them, I guess Officer Post will be getting a Medal of Honor as well.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 5:36 pm EST

report this comment


Ok Name Change you want my background here it is and here is why I can make comment base on fact and not conjecture. I hold a Bachelors degree in Criminal Justice from a respected college in Mass. with a minor in psychology. I have two years of law enforcement experience prior to joining the State Police retiring with the rank of Corporal. That means I spent every day as a uniformed Trooper. I also spent 7 years as a Hostage Negotiator. I think I have the training and experience to comment on this issue. If you have any law enforcement knowledge as you claim you will know that a person does not have to "break a law" to be taken into custody. Again if a person is a danger to himself or others police can use force to take them into custody for an involuntary mental health exam. I would have handled the situation in the exact same manner. Without question. You have my credentials so what are yours???????? Also you should do your research as Fred did not leave. He became and Arson investigator. Yes he was awarded a medal so perhaps you should have the facts before commenting. In closing the citizens of Vermont have no idea how lucky you are to have the men and women wearing the green and gold. Not everyone is perfect but everyone has sworn to go into that house with the despondent man with the gun. Jump into the river to save the child etc, etc etc etc. They do it day in and day out most without ever getting a medal and more often getting nothing more than a bunch of Sh*T from the people they deal with. I do not expect most to agree, most just want to talk in the negative. That is your choice and that is what the police are there for, to protect your life and your ability to do so. I am proud to have been a part of the greatest State Police organization in the nation. I am also thankful that I ended 20 years without having to shoot a person. I came very close on many occasions but they did the smart thing. They put the weapon down.
-- Posted by Chris Power on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 4:26 pm EST

report this comment


Where is all of this unlawful invasion nonsenes coming from? Mrs. Walters called the police and aske them to come to her home because of a problem with her husband and that is what they did. It IS her home too.
The totally silly argument that he should leave and disregard anything that he sees that is not related to the original call is..well it's silly. According to this logic, if an officer responds to a call for noise complaint and sees, lets say a couple of dead bodies on the kitchen table, the correct thing for the officer to do is leave the scene and ignore what he saw because it was not related to the original noise complaint that he was there about.
NC, how can you say there was no disturbance? Foolish person, if there was no disturbance, there would have been no call to the police. For the record, I pay my speeding tickets and Sgt Mozzer has been to my house and he was an impeccable example of what I would hope to see in a law enforcement officer..professional, reasonable, non-judgemental and completely in control of his faculties....so when you ask me what if it was my house, well it was. The big difference is that I did not try to shoot Sgt Mozzer. What happened to the Walters family and Sgt Mozzer is a terrible thing, but I believe that the Sgt. acted responsibly and appropriately.
Hey, if someone was pointing a gun at me, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them, much less try to talk them into putting it down first; Sgt Mozzer put his own life on the line serving us and he does indeed deserve a medal.
Also, NC, Sgt. Mozzer did not instigate a gun fight. His crime was not having had some wine or having an overconcerned wife, you conveniently left out the part where he aimed a firearm at a police officer. THAT was his crime.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 3:25 pm EST

report this comment


Chris

I know you are a State Trooper and I repect your loyalty, but this is about a situation and not Sgt Mozzer's character, loyalty, honor etc, it is about one case in his career and how I believe he used poor judgment.
If you as a State Trooper truly believe what you are saying, then you are NOT serving the people or the U.S. Constitution but your own idea of what and who a State Trooper is and that is going to cause you a lot of grief in your career. I can not believe that you think Mr Walters broke any laws, if you do, would you plese cite the law he broke?

Thank you
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 3:06 pm EST

report this comment


Chris

Once again, Mr Walters was breaking no laws by sitting on his bed with a gun between legs. I have sat on my bed with a pistol or a rifle between my legs, countless times and I have shot no one. I keep a rifle at the head of my bed and I have sat on the bed to wipe it down. I do not see where that is breaking a law.

It is the fault of the VSP because they have to respond to situations AFTER they ave happened, not before. I have no doubt that Sgt Mozzer might have had a good intention to go inside and talk to Mr Walters, but actually that is not Sgt Mozzer's job and his actions once inside agitated the situation.

I will not explain to you where or what my training was, Yes! it was Federal and I am not going to allow you to make it the point of the conversation, for in all actuallity it is totally irrevelant.

The Sworn Affidavit is what is used in court, reports are not used. Sworn Affidavits are witnessed and signed by a witness. A report can be replaced or altered and in my day was never used as evidence either for or against. My day was many years ago and before computers, so maybe things have changed, with the understanding that a report now will be date stamped on the server and unable to be altered without showing a newer date stamp.

Tell me Chris, where was the provacation for Sgt Mozzer to jump Mr Walters when he himself said he was coming down the hall WITHOUT the pistol? Wouldn't a less agressive action given better results? I know so.
This was NOT a Domestic Disturbance, it was not even a complaint of any kind, it was a mere concerned of a wife.
There is no mention of a child and if you have access to information that is not on the Sworn Affidavit, then show the link to it.

What medal did Fred get? I know of no recognition for Fred and he soon left and became a Fire Investigator after the incident. Fred was an outstanding officer of the law. There have been and are many others who have done actual heroic actions, not instigate, use poor judgment and get the Medal of Honor.

What is your back ground, you sure do seem to be missing a lot of the facts, Chris. I am not the one making stuff up, I am taking everything I have said, straight from the Sworn Affidavit. You can challenge anything I say and read it in the affidavit. So please exxplain to me, what facts I am able to not see. I think you are playing dodgeball and using that B.S. because you can not produce a single item of support other than your own paranoia to justify Sgt Mozzer's actions.
Just the Facts Chris. just the facts.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 2:57 pm EST

report this comment


Good points Name Change, seems like keeping his job should be about as much of a reward a Mozzer should have hoped for. He has a gun on him but won't have a face to face rational discussion with Walters, maybe starting with a request to put the gun aside. Lots of "commands" in that affidavit, from one who should be protecting and serving those who have committed no crime. And then the best option he comes up with is to try to arrest the homeowner when he does come out of the room without a weapon? I'd be a little irritated about that as well. Quite a double standard on civil liberties by some, but at least the far right knee-jerk police supporters and far left anti-gun activists have found a unifying cause here.
-- Posted by Justin Tanger on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 1:31 pm EST

report this comment


Name Change.

This will be the last post to you as you are unable to see the facts for what they are. I still am highly doubtfull that you have any law enforcement training much less believable is that you were trained at the Federal level. That being said if you were trained in any fashion you would know that an affidavit of probable cause is specific to the crime or crimes the defendant is being charged with. If you were a law enforcement professional you would know that a report is different from the affidavit and may contain additional information and facts. Read the charging affidavit. It does also state the following. The SGT was invited into the house by the defendants wife. The defendant was sitting on the bed with a firearm. The defendant ordered the SGT from the home. A reasonable person would conclude that an impaired individual who is experiencing personal problem to include financial problems are more likely than not a danger to themselves or others. Oh right, he had a gun between his legs. I would consider this to be a clue to the above. The defendant instigated this. He could have put the gun down at any time. Why do none of you mention this. Oh right because it is the fault of the VSP that they have to respond to reports of distraught intoxicated persons. The bottom line is that the police don't go into work hoping they get to shoot someone. The lucky ones dont ever fire their weapon at another person for their entire career.

SGT Mozzer attempted to use the minimal force necessary when he attempted to take the accused into custody. This did not work and the accused retreated to the bedroom and obtained the gun once again. He took an offensive position forcing SGT Mozzer to retreat to another position. He was ordered several times to put down the weapon and he refused. So I know that I may be a bit slow as you say but at what point so far does the SGT instigate this. What is very clear that the Trooper fired at the accused when the critieria for AOJ was satisfied. If you have any training you will know what this stands for and you can define same. If you read the article for which all this discussion began you will see that the Trooper went upstairs and retrieved the child removing her from the house after the accused was incapacitated. The accused knew his daughter was upstairs and chose to engage in a gun battle with the police. Again if you have forgotten he could have put the gun down at any time prior to this right.

I could go on but any amount of continued debate with you is futile. You are firm in your position as am I.

Oh and by the way SGT Fred Washburn was awarded a medal for his actions that subdued sean allain 20 years ago.
-- Posted by Chris Power on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 12:22 pm EST

report this comment


This award bothers me. I distinctly remember reading about this case in the Herald when it happened, and even with the limited (and sometimes suspect) information provided by the Herald, I immediately thought the officer had overreacted. With the affidavit, I'm quite sure the officer overreacted. It seemed to me that the safer action Mozzer could have take would have been to leave after Walters asked him to. If the wife (and supposed child) were still worried about their safety, I'm sure the officer could have offered to remove them from the scene, and make sure they had somewhere safe to stay. Everything I can gather from this case is that the officer acted to escalate the situation, rather than to diffuse it, which led to a citizen being shot. I suppose we can only be glad that the officer was able to shoot without killing Walters.
-- Posted by Peacefully Evyl on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 12:06 pm EST

report this comment


well written and well said, Steve

Understand everyone that Mr Walters for repeatedly asking a Police offcer to leave and having a Gun battle instigated by the Police Officer, one home owner is facing the following.

Min 20 years in Jail
Max Life or Life without the possibility for parole

Mr Walters was a Professional who had an good education and his only fault was having some Wine and Meds, having a loving and possible over concerned wife who was afraid he would ride his motorcycle and a one Sgt Mozzer who intisgated an explosive situation out of a situation that could have been controlled a hundred or more other ways.

To think people support Sgt Mozzer's actions is proof that they really don't care about the loss of their Civil Rights as they so proclaim when they defend gay marriage or bash Bush or the Patriot act. They are confused creatures who respend to the moment and who have a very short attention span and go after names and not issues.

Keep using your brains people and we will be a full Socialistic State very soon.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 10:33 am EST

report this comment


I have read the affidavit and I believe the officer acted in violation of the state constitution. On top of that, they have the audacity to prosecute someone for standing up for their rights under the Constitution and protecting their home from unlawful invasion.
There have also been at least three incidents within the last few years of police officers using tasers on people who were refusing medical treatment from EMTs. In those cases as well, the "authorities" have also had the audacity to charge those people with "crimes" just for asserting their right to not be molested and to refuse unwanted treatment.
Some of you see no problem with this but there are many of us that see this as an overt attack on our Constitutional rights. This precedent of covering their arses "after the fact" by criminal prosecution of those citizens is criminal itself. It's purpose is to instill fear in those that would stand up for their rights. We are being conditioned to accept that we have no rights except those that "the authorities" graciously decide to give us, not those clearly spelled out in our Constitution.
When those we have delegated our protection to tell us what we will be protected from, not the mandate of the people, we essentially have no rights at all.
Our constitution grants us the right to be free in our person, our homes and our possessions from search, seizure and invasion.
I felt at the time that this incident happened that their should be a thunderous public outcry but there was only silence. No-one cares till it happens to them.
-- Posted by steve Nunya on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 9:34 am EST

report this comment


Also to Comfy, who decided, probably so he wouldn't make a fool of himself, to stay out of this conversation and I guess maybe the same holds true for the self proclaimed Smart Thinking guy.

I am not challenging the intigerty of Sgt Mozzer, nor am I saying he is a bad cop, I am saying the case he was awarded the Medal of Honor for, was a bad judgment call on his part and deserves no medal, but rather a reprimmand.

I can think of Police actions that are far and above this action and no medals were awarded.

Did Officer Washburn get a medal for taking out Sean Allain? maybe some of you should research that. Go back about 20 years.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 9:22 am EST

report this comment


Chris

I forgot to ask you, where was this little girl during the GUNFIGHT? My training taught me to avoid pulling a trigger if there was any chance that the results would cause death or injury to a innocent bystander. Sgt Mozzer endanger a 6 year old little girl for a persumed threat to himself, when to end that threat he merely could have returned in the direction in which he arrived?
I find no mention of a little girl in the SWORN AFFIDAVIT.
So Chris. please correct me if I am worng, does the Court of Law go by Herald Articles? Here Say? or SWORN AFFIDAVITS? just wondering, maybe that is why I am so misinformed.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 9:18 am EST

report this comment


Chris said "I would be curious to know what your "police training and police background" actually consist of."

For what purpose? What would you be able to conclude from it? I will ony say it was Federal. The rest is YOU do not need to know.


Chris Said "It is very clear that the report came into the VSP that the complainant felt that the defendant could be a danger to himself or others, specifically his child who also happend to be in the house."

Where did you obtain this information from the Rutland Herald, it is not in the affidavit?
http://www.rutlandherald.com/assets/pdf/RH600911120.PDF

so what are you going by, Chris a story onthe Herald or a SWORN AFFIDAVIT? Nothing is mentioned about him being a danger to anyone, ony that there was a concerned he was depressed and might try and ride his motorcylce. Please provide your reference, the Sworn Affidavit is at the above link.

Chris said "It is clear that SGT. Mozzer made the determination that this was the case. The police are not allowed to just leave especially if there are children in the house."

Once again ther eis no mention of a child in the house and the police can leave if there is nothing that is related to what they were called out for. Example, he wasn't on his motorcycle, and there was no laws being broken. Sgt Mozzer was not told to enter the home, he made that decision and he was asked REPEATEDLY to leave by the home owner.
You need to explain where you are getting your CLEAR INFO from, it doesn't go along with the SWORN AFFIDAVIT.

Chris said "Perhaps he should have just left, let the situation escalate because now the defendant is so angry his wife called the police and in his diminished mental state decides to kill his child and himself to get back at his wife. Right."

Myeb we should just arrest everybody who buys a bottle of booze, because they are probably going to get into a car and kill someone, maybe we should arrest everyone who owns a gun or a knife, because they might get mad and kill someone, right? Your paranoia is not justification for laws, you need help if you are that paranoid that you need th epolice to step in under every single precieved, imagined situation. How do you know the only person he was going to hurt, if that was his intent wasn't himself? Maybe he was cleaning his gun, maybe he was just admiring it, maybe he liked the feel of it, maybe he he was going to sell it on ebay for some money, they were having some finicial problems, or maybe he was going to take it downtown and sell it, maybe he was going to give it away, maybe, maybe, maybe. You have justify this whole bit of nonesense on your own paranoia and imagination, welcome to the Police State.

Chris said "That never happens right. Imagine the public outcry then. You all would be saying"why did he not go into the house", "he could have saved that poor child from that crazy person." You would have championed for a public lynching. That being said I am not going to address the other foolish questions that you have requested based on your what ifs and coulda shoulda."

My other questions are not based on the what ifs or the should ofs but based right from the SWORN AFFIDAVIT. You aren't going to address them , because you have no clue how to answer any otherway, than the way I did. Nice dodge ball, Chris.
You are demanding that the Police NOT be a reactionary Force? WOW! Hello Police State. So you can arrest on assumptions and other people's WILD IMAGINAGTIONS, such as your own? What if the Queen had Ba**s would she be King?
Good God, Chris, listen to yourself.


Chris said "Again I wonder what police training and background that you have. Watching CSI and dressing up at halloween does not qualify."

This sentence was spoken by a real educated person, maybe I will have to surrender to Eric in another thread if you are a Native Vermonter, you have to be a transplant, you lack in Common Sense and when you can't think past two words, you regress to bashing. Are you related to Notta?
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 9:14 am EST

report this comment


Name Change.

I would be curious to know what your "police training and police background" actually consist of. It is very clear that the report came into the VSP that the complainant felt that the defendant could be a danger to himself or others, specifically his child who also happend to be in the house. It is clear that SGT. Mozzer made the determination that this was the case. The police are not allowed to just leave especially if there are children in the house. Perhaps he should have just left, let the situation escalate because now the defendant is so angry his wife called the police and in his diminished mental state decides to kill his child and himself to get back at his wife. Right. That never happens right. Imagine the public outcry then. You all would be saying"why did he not go into the house", "he could have saved that poor child from that crazy person." You would have championed for a public lynching. That being said I am not going to address the other foolish questions that you have requested based on your what ifs and coulda shoulda.
Again I wonder what police training and background that you have. Watching CSI and dressing up at halloween does not qualify.
-- Posted by Chris Power on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 7:43 am EST

report this comment


Smart Thinking

ow did you come about giving yourself such a username? You haven't even read the affidavit and you are bashing posters based on what? your own self righteousness? ROFLMAO answer the questions oh SMART one. READ the affidavit. Explain to us all, smart one, why you see it so differently.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 6:03 am EST

report this comment


Chris Power

You are either an ignorant fool or a person who loves to welcome control.
It doesn't take anyone with many brain cells to read the affidavit and conclude, right from wrong, with or without prior police training.
They work for us and they work enforcing the existing laws that WE the people put into place. If you are not aware of those laws, then you are the ignorant one.
I happen to have police training and a police background, none of which comes into play when you read the affidavit. It is just pure common sense. Read it.

Smart Thinking,

Maybe you need to read it as well and then you can take that IQ Test yourself.


Comfy
What are you trying to do, save yourself from a speeding ticket? ROFLMAO
Sgt Mozzer, made an error and for the purpose of PR he was awarded a Medal.
Based on what is written in the Affidavit and based on the idea of other alternatives that could have been executed, he made an terrible bad judgment call and you defend that? Maybe the next time it might be YOUR home.
Let me ask you three, Chris, Comfyand Smart a couple of questions and please answer them, because maybe if you see it differently you can explain to me and a some others why we are wrong.

1. Was the complaint, not about not wanting him to come outrside and ride his motorcycle under his current condition?

2. Was he not an educated professional?

3. Didn't Sgt Mozzer decide on his own accord to enter the home?

4. Didn't Sgt Mozzer agitate the situation by taking aggressive maneuvers when he saw him on the bed?

5. At that point shouldn't Sgt Mozzer have stepped back outside and clearly studied the situation. Plan a better approach or leave?

6. When Mr Walters walked down the hall, unarmed, was it in the best interest of the situation to jump in and create a shuffle?

7. If the homeowner who was breaking absolutely no laws, has asked you to leave, repeatedly, shouldn't Sgt Mozzer have left and gont back outside and done #5?

8. If Sgt Mozzer had taken Mrs Walters and the little girl, that is not mentioned at all in the affidavit and left, can you surmise what would have happened? accurately? and would anyone been shot? would there be a costly trial?

9. Are you say that Sgt Mozzer took the ONLY option in actions? and that there was absolutely no other course of action to take?

Please share your answers with all of us, after all those of us who do not agree seem to have a lower IQ, so let's hear the answers from those who claim to have the higher IQ.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 5:57 am EST

report this comment


By the way....Tom, You did a nice job. You are a professional. Thank you for your service. Please do not listen to the low-IQ oxygen wasting inbred ************* that are against your award.
-- Posted by Smart Thinking on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 12:29 am EST

report this comment


Name Change and nh Forester, you two are also idiots. By writing your twisted posts, you have proved that you are anti-police scumbags.
-- Posted by Smart Thinking on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 12:26 am EST

report this comment


Mark, If you added 50 IQ to your current IQ, you would then be all the way up to being an idiot. Maybe if you took your head out of your lower GI tract, you may understand something.
-- Posted by Smart Thinking on Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 12:24 am EST

report this comment


Congratulations Officer Mozer! It's nice to see you get some appreciation for all that you do.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 11:00 pm EST

report this comment


Congratulations Officer Mozer! It's nice to see you get some appreciation for all that you do.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 10:56 pm EST

report this comment


Yknow, A16, I was about to defend you and then I read your next comment where you proceeded to do exactly what you just so self riteously criticized only seconds before.
Anyway, what I was gonna say is that you make some valid points about rights and the constitution, but I think you are off the mark on this case. The officer was called to the house to assist Mrs. W. who called because her husband was in a bad way and she was frightened and concerned. The officer didn't just show up and decide to bust into the house with his guns blazing. He went in to talk with the other person involved in the incident...in other words, he did just what he was supposed to do.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 10:52 pm EST

report this comment


I often wonder why individuals with no law enforcement training or experience other than watching cops on tv pretend to be experts. It is great that we have the right in this country to speak our minds about whatever we choose even in situations where we are too stupid to realize that we have no clue what we are talking about. I wonder how many critics would have gone to the house in the first place. It is clear that the subject was a danger to himself or others. I guess pointing a weapon and firing it at a Trooper should underscore that to even you slower experts.

The State of Vermont is lucky to have Troopers like SGT. Mozzer. Art. 16. No one tells you how to be a better Wal Mart greeter. Dont try to tell SGT Mozzer how to do his job.
-- Posted by Chris Power on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 9:33 pm EST

report this comment


What's the medal for, shooting a mentally unstable citizen? For shooting him but not killing him (as if that was the troopers intent!)? I guess I don't get it. Maybe you had to be there.
.
-- Posted by mark on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 8:39 pm EST

report this comment


Art16VT brings up some salient points.
Unfortunately we as a society have pretty much reached our lowest common denominator, thus rendering it impossible to have intelligent discourse.
Unless you believe the fairy tale that all armed enforcers of the State who wear State issued costumes and jewelry - do no wrong - you are pretty much considered a pariah. Have it your way - you lumpen boobs. The tyranny of a police state will consume you with a vengeance.
-- Posted by nh forester on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 7:35 pm EST

report this comment


The only fear was he might ride his Motorcycle, which by the way was outside. Sgt Mozzer needed only to immobilize the cycle and take Mrs Walters away for awhile.
I don't see any mention of the daughter in the affadavit as well. If she was there, removing them both and disabling the motorcycle was all that was needed. The Police are suppose to be a Reactionary Force and not a force that creates a problem to react to and then get a Medal for it.
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 3:59 pm EST

report this comment


Article 16 is right and this case was discussed at a length, right here.

Here is the sworn affadivit of the case
http://www.rutlandherald.com/assets/pdf/RH600911120.PDF

Mr Walters was breaking no laws and there was NO DISTURBANCE, his wife was afraid he would ride his motorcycle and had drunk wine and taken meds. Officer Mozzer went into the house to speak to Mr Walters, Mr Walters asked Mozzer to leave, several times, as the owner of the house, Mr Walters requests should have been respected by Sgt Mozzer. They were not.
Mr Walters even leaves the room without the firearm and Sgt Mozzer determines to wrestle with Mr Walters. Mr Walters is NOT under a clean frame of mind and returns to the bedroom. Sgt Mozzer calls for backup when all he needed to do was leave.
It was the decision made by Sgt Mozzer to not leave after being requested to many times by Mr Walters that enraged Mr Walters. I think anyone would have been enraged, even if they hadn't taken meds or had some wine.

I agree Sgt Mozzer does NOT deserve the Medal of Honor. He agitated the situation and there were other means that could have been executed.
This is a case where the Police are trying to change the weather that has been developing over the Law Enforcement Agencies with the other bad calls, including this one.

I am amazed how a home invasion can earn a Medal for a Officer and a sentence for the Homeowner.

I agree with you Article 16
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 3:54 pm EST

report this comment


Tree Hugging gay liberal phuques anyways....
-- Posted by Article 16 Vt. Constitution on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 3:19 pm EST

report this comment


Whatever folks.... I took the same exact oath that our president takes at his inaguration at 17 years old and proudly served this country. But if you people are willing to lose you freedoms and privacy then thats all right with me. Look I am only expressing MY opinion on here and if you want to call me names and such that have at it... This country is headed toward a police state and I for one would not like that... just expressing my thoughts folks no reason to be mean & nasty.... I think it was wrong thats all... If you just watched the press conference you might see where I am coming from thats all..
-- Posted by Article 16 Vt. Constitution on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 3:07 pm EST

report this comment


Oh, maybe the officer pulled the trigger first, but pointing a weapon at an officer is going to get you shot. Like it or not.
-- Posted by Dave None on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 2:44 pm EST

report this comment


And, since it's also her house... and she did invite him in.....
Oh and if he did take his motorcycle out while under the influence and kill someone?
And Walters started shooting first.
All that doesn't count A16VT? You really do sound like a windbag.
-- Posted by Dave None on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 2:41 pm EST

report this comment


Hey Article 16, Why don't you go apply to be a state trooper. If they actually fail to see you have only 2 marbles left bouncing around in your head, make your way up to Pittsford and attempt to go through the 18 week Police Academy. Try to speak your mind to a Drill instructor up there and see what he has to say. If you then pass the academy, stick your sorry self out on the streets. See how you react when you are "just doing your job" and someone points a loaded gun at you. I can only imagine your thought process then....shoot first, ask question later. Sgt. Mozzer tried to talk the guy first before s*** hit the fan. Go back to being a hermit you ungrateful, sorry excuse for a human. I love seeing how you have nothing better to do than quote the constitution and actually believe what your saying is right.
-- Posted by Rutland Citizen on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 2:29 pm EST

report this comment


Art.16??? A right to defend his home...the police were called to a disturbance, by a resident of the home, and found a person with questionable mental intentions. Upon investigation the officer was fired upon and defended himself.... How can you blame the officer. Read the facts of the case.

-- Posted by 5letters 6letters on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 1:33 pm EST


Ok whatever you say there 5letter 6letter. I had the priviledge to see the post shooting press conference and what was said in that conference by the state police differ quite abit from the newspaper story but until it happens to you, you will think what happened was right. In my opinion from understanding my constitutional rights what Officer Mozzer did was wrong. He entered the house without permission after being called by the victims wife that she was afraid her husband was going to take off on his motocycle. He didn't he went back INTO HIS HOUSE!!!!! So why did the officer NEED to go in that house??? I mean really... Did the victim threaten his wife? Did the victim threaten his neighbors? Did the victim pose a threat to his neiborhood? I say no but seeing how the general public is wiiling to give congrulatorie awards to them police will continue to errode our constitutional rights... Whats the difference between a criminal breaking into our houses and a police officer that enters without a warrant of permission? The victim in this instance requested the officer to leave on a couple of different occasions, which he did not and to be honest with you the police officer was the first to shoot so the way I see it the victim acted in self defense. But hey that is my opinion and if you want to have a ******* match then have right at it. I personally don't think he deserved any awards for doing the job he gets paid to do. Love it or hate it that is his job... Why make police have bigger egos than they already do????
-- Posted by Article 16 Vt. Constitution on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 2:11 pm EST

report this comment


Art.16??? A right to defend his home...the police were called to a disturbance, by a resident of the home, and found a person with questionable mental intentions. Upon investigation the officer was fired upon and defended himself.... How can you blame the officer. Read the facts of the case.
-- Posted by 5letters 6letters on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 1:33 pm EST

report this comment


I have to disagree but whatever. A man has the right to defend his home. The victim was not causing any problems and he certainly never threatened anyone. He was in his own home when he was gunned down by an overzealous officer of the law. Hey but that is just my opinion and it is protected by the United States Constitution as is any private citzen protecting themselves in their place of "domicile".
-- Posted by Article 16 Vt. Constitution on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 11:04 am EST

report this comment


We're very proud of you, Tom.
-- Posted by capttam on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 7:31 am EST

report this comment


Tom~ Congratulations! I respect and value the state police, city police and sheriff's department. Most of the time your good deeds and excellent service to the citizens go unrecognized, or criticized. It is nice to see all of you acknowledged this way~ Bless you all and heart felt thanks.
-- Posted by proctorian on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 7:16 am EST

report this comment


Congratulations Tom, Well Deserved!!!! Thankfully you weren't hurt.
-- Posted by True Vermonter on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 6:58 am EST

report this comment


With the ever present criticism that the police receive, this is another example of valor of the Police. They certainly deserve my thanks for their service. Well done Sgt. Mozzer!
-- Posted by 5letters 6letters on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 6:10 am EST

report this comment

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

Logout