|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A Randolph woman died Wednesday, October 16 in a single motor vehicle crash on Interstate 89 in Williamstown.
Barre Town and Barre City Rescue, the Williamstown Fire Department and Berlin Fire Department also responded to the scene shortly before 4 PM. A 1995 Subaru Legacy was found on the right side of the northbound lane in a ditch.
The front seat passenger, Beverly Emerson, 42, was found dead. She was not wearing a seat belt. The unbelted driver, Kristopher Steponik, 38, of Randolph, and a teen in the back seat (belted) were transported to Central Vermont Medical Center due to potential injuries.
Road conditions were dry, and the accident is under investigation.
St. J break-in shooting victim ID’d – Matthew Christman, 41, of St. Johnsbury, has been identified as the victim of a 3:10 AM, October 6 home break-in and shooting. State police say that as of Wednesday afternoon, Oct. 16, he remains listed in critical condition at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.
State police say a masked individual forced entry into an apartment on McGill Avenue and fired one shot, striking a victim in the chest. The shooting is under investigation.
K-9 Loki leads VSP North Carolina rescue squad – Four human members of the Vermont State Police and a police dog are heading to North Carolina to assist in the response to devastation caused by Hurricane Helene last month.
Lt. Thomas Mozzer, Sgt. Christian Hunt and K-9 Loki, and Troopers Clay Knight and Zachary Trocki left Vermont in their cruisers at about 4 AM Wednesday, Oct. 16, for the 14-hour drive to Newton, North Carolina. Once on scene in Newton, the Vermont State Police members will be tasked with supporting local law enforcement in providing safety and security in the region.
The deployment came in response to a request from North Carolina Emergency Management via the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which provides for the sharing of assets between states in times of need.
The deployment is expected to last through the end of the month.
Polaris stolen – On October 7, state police received the report of a theft of an off-road vehicle from a home on West Berkshire Road in Berkshire. The 2020 red Polaris RZR (see photo) was stolen from outside the house. Anyone with information is asked to contact Trooper Conte with the St. Albans Barracks at matthew.conte@vermont.gov.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Police Blotter
Wear a seatbelt!!!!!!!!! Always!!!!!!!!
Unlike what your Grand Maw & Grand Paw told you, “freedom” isn’t taking needless risks to spite those “upstate” nor is killing the unborn nor in joyfully taking the breath out of defenseless animals for no valid reason.
It is adhering to the US Constitution and allowing ALL legal citizens to participate in democratic processes. Oh, and for those supporting the ONE defender of REAL Freedoms in this election? He’s FROM New York.
I’m not sure exactly what message you are trying to make, but Liberty (aka freedom), is when you have the right to determine what your own risk tolerances are for yourself, and not have someone else decide what your risk tolerances are for you. If you have liberty, you own your own body and are solely responsible for all consequences of your actions.
One person’s “needless risk” is another person’s acceptable risk. We should not condone the nanny state. I know 2 people who would have been killed had they been wearing their seat belt in their specific type of accident. I still wear a seat belt because my own risk assessments, knowing full well that it’s possible that it could hurt or kill me depending on the infinite different things that can happen in a crash.
The government has a legitimate right to protect life, and that means that a viable living being inside of the mother should have those protections so long as the birth will not have a high risk of death or great bodily injury to the mother. Babies aren’t made magically, if you messed up and got pregnant through willful action, you should suffer civil penalties upon your breach of contract with the potential life if not ended in a time deemed to be common law contractual precedent. You should suffer criminal penalty for viable termination of pregnancy.
Animals are not defenseless otherwise they wouldn’t exist. Who gets to dictate what is valid vs not valid? The best option is to own property that the animals like, and protect those animals on your property. The government has a legitimate role to play in preventing the disruption of wildlife consistent with the animal’s homesteaded habitat. The rest is a moral issue that is left to the people to decide.
I don’t agree that all legal citizens should qualify for participation in the democratic process. The party system is akin to a private club where they follow Roberts rules to curtail an agenda in hopes that the people will find their selections relevant. So far the mass psychosis seems to be working. People that should be disqualified from participation in the selection process should be those who have violated the bill of rights.
There are zero, absolutely zero people in political office who are doing ANYTHING to restore the fundamentals of liberty in the United States. No one in political office is even remotely close to qualified. We as a people are terrible about understanding exactly how we are being ripped off and enslaved. We don’t understand how to fix these issues and we continue to advocate for “our version” of how we want to be enslaved. Shame on us. God is watching us get fooled into the tricks of the devil. We will continue to feel the consequences of our ignorance.
I fully understand wanting to have the lesser of 2 evils, but we must still always call out the evil.
Boy that was hard to follow and I’m not sure what you’re suggesting anyone should do to restore fundamental liberties. How about the liberty to control your own body? And you saying only moms should suffer a criminal penalty when a pregnancy is terminated?
VermontVermonter,
You said a few things that don’t make sense to me, and I’m wondering how you arrived at these conclusions.
1.) “The government has a legitimate right to protect life, and that means that a viable living being inside of the mother should have those protections so long as the birth will not have a high risk of death or great bodily injury to the mother.”
-What does “a viable living being inside the mother” mean?
-Are you aware that abortion is never, ever, ever, medically necessary to protect the mother or her baby? By abortion, I specifically mean the intentional killing of that baby. That said, it is sometimes necessary to perform a c-section or otherwise induce labor when either mom’s or baby’s life is in danger of death or injury. And when that is done, the baby may possibly not survive. But there is never a reason to intentionally destroy or end that child’s life without giving her a fighting chance to survive.
-Why do you assume that the protections every preborn baby has the right to—and which every person involved in that pregnancy, medical care, or delivery has a solemn responsibility to uphold and defend—can be suddenly or capriciously removed because of a medical diagnosis?
2.) “Babies aren’t made magically, if you messed up and got pregnant through willful action, you should suffer civil penalties upon your breach of contract with the potential life if not ended in a time deemed to be common law contractual precedent. You should suffer criminal penalty for viable termination of pregnancy.”
-What do you mean by “potential life”?
-What do you mean by “viable termination of pregnancy”?
-What do you mean by “…civil penalties upon your breach of contract with the potential life if not ended in a time deemed to be common law contractual precedent”?
I ask these questions because while I agree with you that the government has a fundamental responsibility to protect human life, the concepts you present here and which I’ve quoted you as saying, sound like artificial constructs of an ethic which has no basis in reality.