Digital_Cowboy

And again the OP lives in a small town with a small police force. Odds are more than good that the same LEO would be on duty when her daughter was to ride her bike to and from school again. And the same LEO will be upset that his "friendly" concerns were not taken seriously, and will continue to harass the OP and her daughter. For allowing her daughter to ride "oh so far" to and from school.

Just because YOU wouldn't choose to fight this fight doesn't mean that it isn't worth fighting. Obviously to the OP this IS a fight that is worth fighting. I guess, in your opinion that Selz should have just taken the ticket for "impeding"traffic and paid the fine and not fought it, cause after all according to you he likely wouldn't run into that officer again.

He choose to fight it because he was right, either his lawyer or the court found a similar case in Ga. The two cases set the precedent that a cyclist traveling at a speed that is reasonable cannot be cited for "impeding traffic." As they ARE traffic. The irony in Selz' case is that had the LEO cited him under FRAP that he might not have won on appeal. But he was cited for "impeding" traffic and was able to appeal and win.

Likewise a few years ago, a cyclist here in the area where I live was also cited for "impeding" traffic. Only in this case he was making a left hand turn from the left hand turn lane. He choose to fight the ticket in court, and guess what, he won. The ticket should never have been written in the first place. But sadly it was.

The case that the OP has found herself in IS such a case that needs to be fought. As at the heart of it is a child/individual's right to travel. And as I've asked you before, if this battle isn't fought where will it end? Will LEO's have the right to impose their judgement/opinion every time they see someone engaging in an activity that they deem to be "unsafe?" Such as a cyclist riding in the rain, or after dark, or on a mountain trail, or eating at McD's, BK's, KFC's, etc. Don't forget that the police ONLY have the authority that WE give them.

And if we allow them to substitute their judgement/opinion for what is the law then we are giving them even more authority then they have been officially given by their charter. Please go and read the Selz v Trotwood information. At the initial trial the LEO stated for the record that it was HER OPINION that it was "unsafe" for a cyclist to ride their bike on State Route 49.

Here is part of her testimony:

“Q. Now, is it your testimony that Mr. Selz was riding at a slower speed than he could have otherwise ridden?
“A. A slower speed than he — no.
“Q. He was riding at a reasonably normal bicycling speed, wasn’t he?
“A. Yes, sir.”
Officer Vance had some vague notion that Mr. Selz was somehow in danger because he was riding on State Route 49, a roadway that is, admittedly not for everyone. Officer Vance candidly testified as follows on cross-examination:
Q:I take it your opinion is that State Route 49 is simply a dangerous place for bicycles to be?
A:Honestly, yes.


As I've said, if we stop and think about it, the situation that the OP finds herself is essentially the same as Selz found himself in. A LEO attempting to impose their opinion/judgement of what is/isn't safe for a cyclist. Maybe the Selz case can be of help to the OP.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, as I've said before, I've had similar encounters with LEOs. The last one getting on his PA system and ordering me to either move further to the right or to get on the sidewalk.

Digital_Cowboy

Steve,

That is good advice, but what happens in a case as the OP's where there appears to be a "cultural" bias against certain people. As in this case against those who are living in government subsidized housing?

Digital_Cowboy

Exactly, what happened to a parents right to raise their children as they see fit without the interference of the government? Today it's a 10-year old child riding her bike a measly mile to and from school. What will it be tomorrow? A parent raising their children in their religion? Where does it end? And why didn't the police tell that busy body who called in to mind their own business?

Agreed, it's the motorist that the LEO should have gone after, NOT the little girl who by his own admission was riding both safely and legally. Plus on top of that we have a police chief who seems to be changing the facts every time that he's interviewed.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, it was the motorist who was creating the unsafe situation that needed to be pulled over and ticketed, NOT the little girl who was by the LEO's own admission was riding both safely and legally.

I've asked that same question, and I think that it is a very good question. I also have to wonder how much of it has to do with as the OP has suggested that she lives in government subsidized housing. As I said before when I was back in NYS taking care of my Grandmother I ran into that bias myself.

As we had some people on my street that were receiving Section 8 help. Another neighbor anytime anything "bad" happened on the street the first people that she'd blame were the people receiving Section 8 help.

belfast-biker

Frankly I'd say the cops are already regretting the whole sorry episode, especially in light of the appeal court ruling that someone posted. Throw in the changing story from the cops and it's looking poor for them. I just hope they don't go looking into the ladies background for some minor unrelated bull**** or sit outside her door 24/7 for her to slip up. Y'know, for her "own safety".

Digital_Cowboy

I agree with you, like you I'm sure that the EPD are regretting the way that they have handled the situation. Also agreed, and as I said, in the last post maybe the Selz v Trotwood case can help the OP. As the two cases do (at least to me) appear to be essentially the same. In that in both cases we have a LEO who is acting as father/mother knows best and imposing their opinion/judgement/will over a cyclist/mother. Who is/are doing something that is safe and legal. There was another case of two cyclists who had gone out for a training ride with a group and decided because of having trained the day before not to complete the ride and return home. They were assaulted by first a LEO who thought that they were operating either unsafely or illegally. He'd (IIRC) had ordered them to leave the roadway, they ignored his illegal order and kept riding. Whereupon he (I think) blocked them with his cruiser and called for backup and ended up tazing the older cyclist.

It is also telling that the story that the police are giving has changed a number of times while the story that the mother has given has stayed the same. I would think that in the court of public opinion that that will carry considerable weight.

As has been asked before it would be interesting to know that if the OP's child was a boy if there would have been any problems with him riding a mile to and from school?

I also find it interesting that the LEOs in question apparently have no problems with the little girl walking for about 5 minutes by herself to and from the bus stop. Even though she could just as easily be hit by a car doing so, or kidnapped, or any of the other things that they seem to be concerned about happening to her while she's riding her bike to and from school.

sathor

I'm pretty sure both of those two incidents were handled by the same lawyer, here in Ohio. IIRC, those two were from WV, and were on the way back into WV when they got stopped.

BikeMomTn

I am now scratching my head, the journalist in my home stated the Chief police is now using the alternative route situation. A proposition which has previously been shot down repeatedly.

bakpakr

As noted this is Tennessee

Yes the child was detained. She was detained during which the officer was conducting his investigation. As soon as he placed her into his custody in the cruiser it stopped being a detention and became an arrest. A charging document is not needed for an officer to effect an arrest also a warrant is not needed for and officer to effect an arrest. The only time and officer can effect a legal arrest with out documentation is if he witnesses a misdemeanor or has knowledge that a felony has been committed or about to be committed.

The child in question has not been accused of committing any crime. Thus the arrest is unlawful.

The question was posed that if the child had refused to accompany the officer what would have happened. The reply was he would have forced her to go with him. In every law class I have ever taken that is ARREST and not detention.

Digital_Cowboy

I thought that in the second case that they were from out of state but couldn't remember. I think (IIRC) that the LEO in question in the second case also thought that they were "impeding" traffic. And didn't the second case happen after Selz v Trotwood?

Digital_Cowboy

Okay which change in the police story/position is this?!? How much do you want to bet that they're going to try to spin it, so that it appears to be their idea and not that of the OPs?

Agreed, and using that same yardstick. Isn't an adult also under arrest anytime that an officer places them in handcuffs and locks them in the backseat of their cruiser? And are not being "detained" by the officer in question to conduct their investigation? As (at least to me) being detained means that one still has to some degree the freedom to leave. Also if I am not mistaken, if one resists being "detained" won't they end up with a charge of resisting arrest?

SweetLou

Yes, it did occur afterwards.

Yes and no. Steve Magas was the lawyer for Selz in both the trial and the appeal. Another lawyer had the charges dismissed for the WV man, but Magas did the civil suit. I'm not sure who was the lawyer for the adolescent.

Captain Blight

[QUOTE=Digital_Cowboy;13159808] What will it be tomorrow? A parent raising their children in their religion? Where does it end? [QUOTE]
Just so you know, this is known as Non causa pro causa, or the slippery-slope argument, and is one of the most common logical fallacies. Unless you actually can see into the future, you shouldn't use this argument, particularly around people who know better.


Not, however, that I disagree in this particular instance; but, since you ask, I'll tell you where it ends. It ends at the junction of Common Sense and Consent of the Governed.

mnemia

The "slippery slope" argument isn't always invalid or a logical fallacy. It's only invalid if there is no logical reason to believe that event a) will inevitably lead to event b). You could make an argument that in this case, there IS a logical reason to fear for other parental rights. What's happening in this case is that the police are trying to substitute their own foolish and absurd "judgement" for that of a parent. And they are using the authority of their position to try to get their way in this argument by force and threats. Now, it may be absurd to suggest that the police are going to start telling parents they can't raise their kid in their religion, and that particular thing probably is not likely to happen due to popular attitudes in this country. But once we give the police unchallenged authority to do what the police are doing in this case (ie, overrule a parent who is allowing the child to do something that is otherwise reasonably safe and legal) then police could essentially do the same thing on whatever they want. As long as cultural taboos and biases are on their side, the police decision goes, in that view of the world.

It's not a fallacy to suggest that there is a slippery slope if you have a clear mechanism for how thing a) could lead thing b). In this case, that mechanism is the establishment of the principle that police authority overrides parental authority, even when no laws have been broken.

bwallach

Using slippery slope arguments is itself a slippery slope. If you start using them, you'll use them more and more until it's the only type of argument you ever use and the only thing you ever think about and, and, ... Oops! There I go again. See what I mean?

Actually, in this case I think the slippery slope argument is quite valid since I've seen a steady erosion of parental rights for decades and a steady increase in the fear of risk of all sorts, again for decades. The trend is definitely and strongly down the slippery slope.

mnemia

The fear/paranoia/risk-aversion thing that's going on in our society is really weird and unhealthy. On the one hand we have fear of risk approaching the level of insanity on some issues, like for example most anything involving children being alone. On the other hand we have brazen risk blindness in other areas, such as when drivers talk on their cell phones or when people drive drunk. The difference seems to be social norms and taboos, not any sort of rational assessment of relative risk. I blame television for a lot of this, for creating a false, irrational, and emotionally-based set of cultural taboos surrounding children. Actually, I think that TV distorts people's world view in a lot of ways subtle and unsubtle, and I think it's one of the main reasons our politics are so screwed up, too. We'd all be better off if we watched less TV, in my view. I think that if I ever have kids I'm only going to allow television viewing in very small, supervised doses.

MMACH 5

Yea, that's what we all said...

sathor

I think the adolescent was the child of the other rider. It's been a while since I read the case though.

Digital_Cowboy

[QUOTE=Captain Blight;13160415][QUOTE=Digital_Cowboy;13159808] What will it be tomorrow? A parent raising their children in their religion? Where does it end? True, but unfortunately given that even when the mother had suggested/asked about her daughter taking an alternate route to and from school she was told no by the police. Thus they have already started down said slippery slope by continuing to tell her how she can and cannot raise her daughter/children.

BikeMomTn

Steve Magas is who I have been speaking with. Nice guy

Digital_Cowboy

I have a very good question, when did the first child welfare office come into being? I'm not saying that they are not totally unneeded as there are legitimate cases of child neglect/abuse, but this is clearly NOT one of those cases.

In this case we have a mother who loves her daughter and is trying to do the best for her, and the irony is that in this day and age with rising cases of childhood (and adult) obesity, and diabetes we have a mother who is encouraging her daughter to ride her bike to and from school and she's being chastised for it.

Agreed, add to that we have various agencies and "well meaning" individuals trying to tell parents who are NOT doing anything wrong how to raise their children. How did parents raise their children without all of this "expert" advise?

I mean IF according to all of the "so called" experts that a child needs to be in a safety car seat, and homes need to "childproof" in order to be safe for the little ones. Then how the hell were any of us able to grow into adults?

When I was a kid and we had a garden in our backyard, I remember pulling carrots out of the ground and rinsing them off in the swimming pool before eating them. As others have said, for a lot of us the about the only requirement we had was that we had to be home before the street lights came on.

Digital_Cowboy

I'm pretty sure that he was just a fellow club member/fellow cyclist, and not related to the adult.

joejack951

I think we'll be waiting a long time before we hear about a police officer removing cyclists from mountain bike trails or from a skate park solely because the officer feels their actions are "dangerous". Why do some here feel it's ok for an officer to remove a cyclist from the road who's done nothing illegal because of the officer's feeling about the activity?

sathor

https://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...-disobey-cops/

point goes to you on that one.