Loading ...
Alex Teach Responds To His Bicycling Column
Written by Alex TeachJuly 31, 2009 – 4:54 pm
Editor’s Note: Alex Teach’s recent column, “Combustion Engines – The Preferred Method”, generated a huge amount of response, both negative and positive. We received more emails, web postings and phone calls about his column that any other column we’ve run in The Pulse in quite some time. We asked Alex to explain the his process behind writing the column as well as responding to many of the criticisms he has received. Here is his response:
I have been graciously asked by my remarkably patient Editors to provide a written reply to the passionate responses regarding this week’s Opinion Column, entitled “Combustion Engines: The Preferred Method.” I awoke after two hours of sleep to see that it was the topic of internet blogs, competing radio stations, and the Office of the Mayor. Imagine my surprise.
Let me begin by saying that for those that took it with its intended laugh at the tongue-in-cheek regard in which a small percentage of bicycle riders hold themselves, I am grateful for your comments. The majority of my stories are rooted in passionate concern, humorous stories, personal tragedy, and the defiance of common sense that still manages to shock me. The bicycle story was based on the latter, and you laughed for the same reason I did: Making fun of people that take themselves too seriously is, indeed, great entertainment to those who do not.
Allow me to eliminate ninety-nine percent of the furor right now: If you care to re-read the article, you will find that at no time did I trivialize the death of David Meek March 6th of this year. Furthermore, at no time did I trivialize the injury to Professor Townsend on July 20th. This was ASSUMED. There is nothing ambiguous about my statements because they are there as they were written, in black and white. Should any of the contemptuous readers care to go back for a second look, I only made two actual specific comments regarding those incidents:
One, the title of (quote) Prominent Local Bicyclist (end quote) is what made me laugh in the second sentence of the column. That’s it. Not a name, not a person or tragedy, just the aggrandizing title. It’s actually quite specific and says (quote) the title struck me as funny (end quote).
Second: In the ninth of eleven paragraphs, I referred to the person who struck Professor Townsend and fled as an [explicative] of the highest order (edited for radio).
That’s it. The rest of the column was dedicated to my Personal Opinions of the near absurdity to which a passionate minority have responded in a way I can appreciate: Loudly and without much thought.
If anything else is communicated in this response, it is to point out that these responses were based on THEIR view of these incidents, and NOT my column. I can prove this by referring you to the actual article, word for word.
Let me give you some rare insight: My personal title for this weekly Column is the “Eye of the Pig”, referring to an anti-cop rap group who refers to it as “the eye that has seen it all”. Ironic that they can sing songs about hating and killing cops, but here I am today with my job at risk for making fun of bicyclists.
As evidenced by the boldness of my topics, and various points in time from which they are written, I do not write this column for any justification or support of my opinions. I am old, nearing retirement, and no longer seek peer support to form an opinion. They are a catharsis, and an extremely rare insight to the profession obsessed over by television and movies, and now apparently radio and weekly alternative newspapers. The Pulse gave me this platform for one reason: Cops are terrified of telling stories like these, and their fears are justified to this very day: Many of those upset with this Constitutionally advocated opinion article have taken their annoyance directly to the Mayor of Chattanooga, who has promised to look into this internally.
I wrote an opinion article and now my job is at risk. Do you know why I am not crapping my pants right now? Because I wouldn’t want to work for a Police Department that restricts my right to opinion, my right to free speech, after I have waded through the blood and filth for it and this City. You shouldn’t want cops that follow orders unquestioningly either, because those are often found in Dictatorships. The Mayor and I swore an oath to the same Constitution, and I hope he will defend it as vigorously as I do.
Now then, Do you know what I have taken from this minor circus? Two things, really.
One: That this article has clearly rooted out the primary demographic of the Chattanooga Pulse, that being the outdoor community and many granola-eaters in general. Advertisers take note.
The Other: That I have written about religious discrimination, selective racism by racial advocacy groups, how prostitution affects residential neighborhoods, and how no one seems to care why 15 year old boys wander the City shooting into traffic, or how they got the guns. They care about whether or not he should have been stopped in the commission of these crimes and the record of the cop that did it, and they care that a Policeman thinks it’s funny when he hears someone calling a bicycle rider “Prominent” or “up and coming” and compares it to a five year old losing his training wheels or something.
And in retaliation, they want him fired.
I’m not the one who should be ashamed here. You should for trying to affect my ability to express my opinions, when it is you who interpreted things incorrectly and have reached into my real-life and my ability to support my wife and kids, despite my years on the job.
I have held the hands of dying men whom no one else cared about. One was a personal friend, like Mr. Meek. I have told parents of the death of their only children, and I have been hospitalized in the course of my service to this City. And I will serve again tonight, and most of the nights you sleep in your beds, and I will not even try to get you fired when I disagree with you.
Bicycle riders get hit by cars. Cops get shot.
I am allowed to think things are funny.
I am allowed to have an opinion.
And when your interpretation is wrong, I will not apologize for your mistakes.
I will simply be there when you call for help, like I always have. Thank you for your time, for your readership, and for the freedom we have to enjoy both.
I will let you know at my earliest convenience if I have been fired for such. And of course, keep riding.
-Signed, Alex Teach
Posted in PulseBlog |
|
|
31 Comments »
I’m taken back. Again, you have no fear in your writing and it’s splendid. What is most sad about your “reply” is that the same people who were offended before, will merely be more offended now. Keep up the entertaining articles, there are people who appreciate them. Perhaps they fall into a category of people who are more afraid to voice an opinion that opposes the general population.
Alex,
I was one of the few (apparently) who found humor in your column, although I can also see why it was upsetting to a great many. I appreciate the response above, but I do have to question one portion of it:
“That this article has clearly rooted out the primary demographic of the Chattanooga Pulse, that being the outdoor community and many granola-eaters in general. Advertisers take note.”
May I ask, sir, what the hell granola has to do with anything here? And does that quip not undermine your attempt at an explanation?
Your opinion is of no concern to me; it is yours alone. I’m a grown-up, and I can deal with it. I can laugh at “up-and-coming” and “prominent” in the way that they were used, as you humorously pointed out. And I can sense, even if I don’t directly share, the outrage inspired by a member of law enforcement seemingly mocking cyclists’ deaths and injuries at the hands of motorists who don’t obey the laws. Most importantly, I champion your right to say what is on your mind, in print.
But I’m just curious about the inclusion of that particular revelation. Why does that constitute a take-away all its own, and first in line? That right there says something.
First, thank you for the followup.
Second, I think you also can be accused of making assumptions. I, for one, speak out (and act) on other issues all the time. And I never said you should be fired for your opinions. Whether someone who appeared, in his writing, to have no care for the rights and freedoms of cyclists (or appeared to think thus of any group) should be a policeman is not the same question.
You obviously care about people, and your job, and doing the right thing. That’s more important than this column, or the furor. But this column gave comfort to people who think cyclists shouldn’t be on the road, and if they are, and if they are injured, it’s their fault. Is that worth this one exercise in expression?
I do not want you fired for your opinion. That you see all cyclists as arrogant because of the phrasing chosen by a reporter though… I find your attacks once again misguided. It is not the cycling community, as has been pointed out before, that chose that phrase. I could also point out that much like anything else, it’s possible to be an “up and coming” anything without curing cancer. You can be an “up and coming” golfer, as once Tiger Woods was called. You can be an “up and coming” and “prominent” newspaper columnist. You can even be an “up and coming” lawyer. Surprisingly little is required for the title.
Do cyclists take themselves too seriously? Perhaps. Perhaps it only seems that way to fat folk sitting on their couches raising their risk of heart failure and diabetes because “by gosh-a-golly them thar cyclists are too dang healthy and too dang proud of it. If they’d just get a beer gut and quit talkin’ about healthy, sustainable lifestyles maybe they’d be more tolerable.”
Rights & Responsibilities.
Yes you have the right to free speech (w/in limits), but you also have responsibilites both as a private citizen & particularly as a member of the law enforcement community. It was arguably an inresponsible column as a private citizen. It was utterly irresponsible to write what you did as a police officer.
The idea that you might be disciplined, sanctioned or otherwise for that irresponsible tirad would suit me just fine.
A persons right to speak his or her mind should never win out over a greater responsiblility to hold ones speech in check.
Alex, while the cycling community may appear to be taking itself too seriously at this time, bear in mind there have been two deaths of cyclists in nearby Scottsboro this week. We’ve also had two separate incidents of motorists deliberately ramming cyclists with their vehicles on Highway 41 within the past 4 weeks.So, there’s a high degree of sensitivity about this issue and it’s particularly disappointing to have someone whose sworn duty is to serve and protect apparently making light of these incidents. At this time, and under these circumstances, you’re apparently condoning these senseless unprovoked acts of violence while subtly suggesting that your views are representative of the police force as a whole. So, while you’re entitled to voice your opinion, I’d certainly question whether that opinion is encouraging further incidents of this kind. You have a talent for writing, and you’re very persuasive. Please consider how you’re swaying opinions, and what the consequences may be.
Yes… you are allowed to think things are funny, but it may have been in your best interest not to vocalize that possible injury or loss of life of ANY human being would make you grin and laugh. Your words EXACTLY as stated in paragraph #2 of the original article. “I could fairly envision the wailing of widows and the gnashing of teeth as tear-filled bloodshot eyes looked skyward for answers with fists balled and raised above their heads. My grin turned to a full-out laugh.”
There was absoutely nothing funny to me about the article you wrote and the explaination of why you did so lowers my opinion of you and The Pulse even more. While I would never wish you to loose your job… I sincerly hope that you have learned a valuable lesson from this.
Lt. or Sgt. Teach,
Actually, as an English teacher (media promotion to PhD status???), I enjoyed your lexicon and wit and appreciated your attempt at a Swiftian “Modest Proposal. “Hope you don’t have to look that one up.
Let’s view the issue like this:
If a person fires a bullet that grazes a person’s ear, it’s assault with a deadly weapon. Buzzing a biker is attempted homicide.
What we, as riders, do is dangerous. We have accidents. I’ve flown over guardrails and glided atop railroad tracks. Collarbones come a dime a pair for cyclists. But to be slammed at high speed by a car is not an accident; it’s a crime.
Keep penning,
Van
A lot of people try to justify poor judgment with freedom of speech or that it was just a satire or a joke. You are welcome to satirize the writing of the newspaper or bicyclists. I would think that both are too easy a target but they are both fair game. The problem is that your article is not very well written. The major flaw is that your two “satires” are introduced and tied together by a hit and run incident. Maybe someone is a good enough writer to pull that off without the incident becoming the focal point, but you weren’t. The context and what you actually said leads the reader to think that you thought the hit and run was funny and that the cyclist got what he deserved for riding on the road. The fact that you represent yourself as a law enforcement officer makes this perception even worse. The derogatory remark towards the driver does nothing to negate that. It really doesn’t matter if you didn’t intend that. It is there. Maybe you need to re-read your article.
And perhaps your profiling of those who don’t wholesale approve and encourage cycling as “fat folk sitting on their couches” is as good an indication of the arrogance of which he speaks as anything else.
And to those who read this, we know each other, and I am fat, and I know she wasn’t speaking directly to me.
As much as I think mixing high mass, high speed vehicle with low mass, low speed vehicles is dumb, many cyclists think that driving when we could ride is dumb. I happen to agree with the cyclists, but only when it is safe to do so, and with the roads we have today, and the way the city and country traffic engineers have designed our traffic patterns, I do not believe it to be safe at this time.
Thats why I think it is a bad idea to encourage more and more people, wbo don’t know what they are doing or the risks involved, to take to the streets. Being a somewhat confirmed Libertarian, I am becoming convinced there shouldn’t be laws preventing cyclists on the streets (something I’ve discussed on other forums), but I do think it is putting the cart in front of the horse. Encourage the city and counties to make it safe, THEN encourage people to take advantage of it your efforts. Doing it the other way around is just going to get more people hurt.
“And when your interpretation is wrong, I will not apologize for your mistakes.”
That sums up YOUR problem right there. You are too arrogant to admit the possibility of an error on your part. Do the community a favor and resign now. You are exactly the type of cop who causes the CPD to get a bad name.
At your invitation, I reread your article and carefully considered your claim that we misunderstood. I’ve come to the conclusion that’s it’s you that doesn’t understand how personally we take the death of a friend. How could we read the following sentence and not conclude that you are making fun of someone who has lost his life.
“I could fairly envision the wailing of widows and the gnashing of teeth as tear-filled bloodshot eyes looked skyward for answers with fists balled and raised above their heads. My grin turned to a full-out laugh.”
Its meaning is clear and very cruel. We understood perfectly.
I’m pretty sure the furor is not over the 2 parts you pointed out, but this: “I could fairly envision the wailing of widows and the gnashing of teeth as tear-filled bloodshot eyes looked skyward for answers with fists balled and raised above their heads. My grin turned to a full-out laugh.”
And yes, you’ve held the dying, notified families of the loss of loved ones, and been injured in the line of duty while doing what you love, so you of all people should understand how people who knew Meek, Townsend, or any other cyclist hit by a car would take your “full-out laugh”.
I personally do not want you fired, but being placed on bike patrol for a while would do you a world of good in gaining some perspective.
Mr. Teach,
I don’t think the people are as upset about you finding humor in the title “Prominent Cyclist..” as much as they find the following comment absolutely revolting
“I could fairly envision the wailing of widows and the gnashing of teeth as tear-filled bloodshot eyes looked skyward for answers with fists balled and raised above their heads. My grin turned to a full-out laugh.”
This Mr. Teach indicates that you have some serious issues, and I sincerely hope you turn in your gun and badge and then get some counseling.
Funny, I thought it was the cops who lie, steal, and take bribes from drug money that gave them a bad name, not the ones who expressed their opinions. Guess I’ve been misinformed.
Alex, if everyone is interpreting it the “wrong” way is this our fault?
Patrick, “cyclists shouldn’t be on the road, and if they are, and if they are injured, it’s their fault” – this is an interesting opinion. To clarify – you are stating no matter what happens – the cyclist is always in the wrong, since they are riding in the street?
The street’s of-course that were paid for by public tax dollars.
Dearest ‘Bill’:
Actually, “no” Bill. On two more counts, in your case. I admit errors immediately, though obviously not too frequently; in this case, I am the author and I’m going to have to tell you – interpretation on MY part is irrelevant, because I WROTE the bloody thing. That’s how it works. YOU didn’t interpret (specifically, ‘read’) what -I- wrote, and I specified that above in paragraphs four and five.
Second, no, I’m not that kind of cop. ‘Those’ cops are the ones raping and stealing drugs and guns and shaking down dealers and ignoring the Constitution. Bill, I am EVERY cop, just a regular guy making below average pay doing an impossible job for people. I stay up till dawn answering 911’s and deterring crimes before they become calls. In fact, people solicit my advice more than I am able to answer calls for service so gracious is my giving nature, even when it scars my face arms and legs in the service to the city. I read Dr. Seuss for to elementary students and block traffic to let ducks cross the road safely, and I jump out of windows after burglars. I visit elderly people living alone in high-crime neighborhoods, and I attend those community groups and address problems head-on and with my hands. I work two jobs to allow my wife to stay at home and raise our kids. I am EVERY cop, but I also have an opinion and I’m allowed to cite it despite your facist approach to such.
Let’s take it a step further, Bill. I say YOU are exactly the kind of guy to give ‘people’ a bad name, but don’t worry; I won’t try to cost you your job for feeling such. Hells Bells, it’s just your OPINION after all.
Then there’s the fact that I’m no where NEAR the asshole someone like you is. My job? Really, Bill? REALLY?
I no longer live in Chattanooga and sometimes miss the Scenic City quite a bit. But when I read statements like yours, even when written with a witty pen, I am glad to be further away. Along those lines, being defensive doesn’t help your cause either.
Mr. Teach,
Sometimes it’s not what we say but the way we say it.
Sorry Alex, you do deserve to lose your job.
Because you display the characteristics of someone, given a situation where you could say yes or no to someone having fault (the referenced cyclist killing), that the generalizations and statistics of “what someone should expect when cycling along the streets with big cars” are what should decide what’s right and wrong.
What decides what is right and wrong are laws, not the police officer that applies his opinions to the situation and says No because what happened “should happen” or “what do they expect”. It was a grave error no Gross ticket was issued in the referenced cyclist’s killing, but apparently you were in agreement.
Just like implying that a woman walking in a skirt at night is asking to get raped, or a minority kid can’t get an education and make something of themselves, or a black man walking into his cambridge home is statistically guilty, etc. etc.
Fill your mind with some more cartoons and leave But first, please ask your like minded colleagues to leave with you.
I don’t think anyone should be surprised that a police officer lacks the required education necessary to write well enough for his satire to be taken as only that. It’s pretty clear that every supposed witty remark of Mr. Teach is indeed an expression of his own personal feelings and it is for that stupidity of effort that I find the actions of Mr. Teach using his status as a police officer to voice anything short of the letter of the law utterly deplorable. Want to write your personal opinion? Wait until retirement, and do it on your own personal web site. That way, the right people (nobody) will read it.
What a coward you are to try and hide behind the thin veil of “freedom of speech”. You sir, are simply a condescending, pompous a-hole…….plain and simple.
In response to Alexander Teach’s comment
“And in retaliation, they want him fired.
I’m not the one who should be ashamed here. You should for trying to affect my ability to express my opinions, when it is you who interpreted things incorrectly and have reached into my real-life and my ability to support my wife and kids, despite my years on the job.”
I think it is a bit hypocritical you want to invoke the “wife and kids” when you have used the death of a man who had a family as a springboard for personal attention. I don’t think you should be fired, if you’re otherwise not screwing up, but I think a reprimand could be in order. You may be a great street cop. If so, thanks for being there but it doesn’t excuse what is a serious failure of judgement on your part that I wonder if it stems from your being a bit self-aborbed. I think you’re posting indicate you’re more than a little self-absorbed.
When I started in law enforcement, and over the course of a 25+ year career, I never thought that I have an absolute right to free speech in regard to matters arising from my official duties.I am not a Pulse reader or a granola eater (just so you know where I am coming from). I was sent a link to your piece from a friend and felt obliged to respond to what is some seriously flawed thinking on your part.
I think I am correct when I say that a recent Supreme Court ruling would support the view that public employees do not have an absolute right to free speech. Don’t get me wrong, I think there is a time and place for public employees to speak out (about corruption, serious incompetence, etc) and stand up for their rights for fair treatment as employess and as citizens living under a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Whether you have crossed the line is ultimately for your bosses to decide. But I think a case could be made that you have crossed the line as a police officer because you (A) have made it publicly known you a police officer, (B) you are speaking about an official police investigation, (C) the callous manner in which you publicly speak of the death of the man is conduct unbecoming of an officer, (D) despite the clear legal right of cyclists to use most public roads, you have publicly implied- as a police officer – they should have it coming should they be involved with a car in an accident, (E) you have publicly misrepresented the law regarding cyclists’ right to use public roads while representing yourself as a police officer.
Now, I have not thoroughly researched this topic, but here is an excerpt from a Fraternal Order of Police bulletin (you may have to copy and paste the link, http://www.fop.net/programs/research/freespeech.pdf, interpreting the meaning of a fairly recent Supreme Court ruling, Garcetti vs. Ceballos, a case that deals with free speech of public employees (emphasis added):
“To balance these sometimes competing interests, the courts generally protect that employee’s speech which can be shown to address concerns of legitimate public interests. A police officer may well have a “constitutional right to free speech.” However, that same officer does not necessarily have a constitutional right to be a police officer of a particular department while he or she exercises that right, if such speech hinders the effectiveness or efficiency of the police operation and serves no public interest. The courts do recognize that public employers, as employers, have an interest in regulating the speech of their employees that differs significantly from its interests in regulating the speech of the average citizen. Added to these interests, law enforcement agencies also have an interest in the need for discipline in the paramilitary organizational structure. ”
Could a Chief of Police fire you for using racist terms directed at citizens? Yes. Why? What is the underlying logic? It is because it demonstrates unequal treatment before the law, that an individual or class of individuals do not deserve the equal treatment before the law.
Could a fire chief take disciplinary action against a fire marshall if the latter stated that tenement dwellers deserved to burn up because they were too stupid to change their smoke detector batteries? You bet. Why? Because it is highly offensive to victims and their families and because it undermines the public confidence in the institutions that are ultimately subservient to the public through representative government. It is demonstrative of seriously flawed thinking that is at odds with the overwhelming majority of reasonable persons.
You have essentially told a group of citizen, who use the legal conveyance of a bicycle, that they should expect what they get on public roads. Now, that is fine as a private citizen, but your whole gig at The Pulse stems from your duties as a Chattanooga Police Officer, does it not? You have made it clear to all your readers that your are an active duty police officer and through your insights you have gained as a police officer, that there is a “pattern” (By the way, did you consider the pattern might be careless or reckless driving by motorists, or worse yet, intentional assaults which you a duty-bound to investigate).
What if one of those citizens said “Any cop who is dumb enough to go in the projects and gets shot has it coming”? Yes, cyclists get hit and cops get shot, but if a cops gets shot in the projects, you don’t say he had it coming. You find out who did it and bring justice.
Motorists are not sharks in the ocean but presumably thinking individuals capable of personal responsibility. The road is not the “home” of cars exclusively but also motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians. And choosing to ride a bicycle on the road where one should have the right to expect a safe journey is in no way similar to a sticking one’s hand under a lawnmower (look up “straw man”). There is clear law, which you should know because you are sworn to uphold it, that describe the rights and duties of motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians. What is clear, is that drivers of motor vehicles with 4 or more wheels do not own the road.
But in case you have forgotten or have lost sight of your obligations as a police officer, laws pertaining to cyclists’ rights to be on the road are found in the neighborhood of TCA 55-8-172
Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles — Penalty. —
(a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapter 10, parts 1-5 of this title, except as to special regulations in §§ 55-8-171 — 55-8-177, and except as to those provisions of this chapter and chapter 10, parts 1-5 of this title which by their nature can have no application.
Given your concern for our Constitution and Bill of Rights, perhaps you should be reminded of the separation of powers doctrine. As you should know, it is a matter for legislative bodies – imperfectly expressing the public will – to determine rules and regulations for the public roads. It is the job of police (as members of the executive branch) to enforce the will of the legislative branch and when you say things that undermine your, or your department’s ability to do so, I would suggest you go have failed as a police officer again, perhaps exposing you to official censure. The legislature, not “Officer Teach”, determines the rules of the road. The message you send, officer, is that you do care what the legislative process has yielded and everyone reading your opinion is perfectly entitled to doubt they police would take seriously, in an unbiased way, a car-bicycle accident.
The message being received by a segment of the population who share a common interest in cycling on public roads, is that they deserve what they get if they don’t have better sense than to be on the road. This is classic “blaming the victim:” thinking akin to telling a rape victim that she had it coming. This sort of thinking is a failure of society and civilization, and a failure of law enforcement, to which you are contributing because you as a police officer, apparently don’t care what the law is concerning bicycle traffic on public roads (cyclists are members of the public by the way) because your personal opinions – your “rights” – matter more.
I’ll be the first to say that cycling on roads requires some common sense and some cyclists no doubt are the cause of accidents, but almost all I have seen are responsible riders, and good, smart folks. I am all for officers having free speech rights as private citizens. But each accident or assault involving a cyclist should be judged on an individual, case-by-case basis. THIS IS THE LAW. This is your job. But you have classed all such cases into “you cyclists had it coming”, again, compromising you as a police officer and a lesser degree your department.
Police officers need the support of the public. The public is often woefully inadequate in this regard. Many members of the public are wholly unworthy of the good public service they receive (when they receive it, which is not always) when they call on the police, being thoroughly contemptible as human beings. But I have observed over the course of a career is that most people deserve good police service and want to support their police. All cops make mistakes. I can look back on situations and cases and think of how I could have done better. This is one of your blunders and it is a big one, whether you will ever realize it or not. You use your public office to have material to put out stories but also put many ill-considered remarks out in a public forum, undermining your credibility and showing a bias against a class of citizens who share a common interest in a legal recreation.
Some day, in court, whether prosecuting a case or defending yourself in a lawsuit, it may come down to jurors’ perception of your credibility, and lack of personal agendas on your part. Unfortunately, that perception is also projected on other officers and the department generally. Nothing is more important than an officer’s credibility and it may be the only thing a judge or jury has to go on. You have injected a personal opinion into the discussion of a cyclist v. motorist fatality case – an official investigation – and you have done so in a crass, callous and self-serving way. You have given the public no reason to believe you would approach these investigations in an unbiased manner.
Finally, let me add a personal observation about cyclists in general. Most of these folks are decent people who contribute far more to society than they take away. In this, they are joined by a number of current and retired cops in the Chattanooga Police Department, many of which ride bikes for fitness, fun, and for good causes such as cancer research, MS research. and the national police memorial. Like their non-police cyclist counterparts, most are good, solid employees and people, and generally physically fit to boot. Why would you have issue with that? The fact that a driver fumbling for a cellphone hits one, or a redneck intentionally “clips” one makes the cyclist a victim, entitled to justice.
If you’re so burnt out, Officer Teach, that your incapable of doing your part to deliver justice, you should retire soon. It is easy to get a skewed view when you see so much negativity day to day and forget the larger world where the (mostly)good folks live. It is understandable how a cop can get a jaded view of the world but you might want to vary your experiences and the company you keep and maybe even get a bike. Riding a bike on the road is the best thing I ever did for my attitude and many a bad day was left out there on the road.
Alex Teach,
This is what we all call a “back-pedal” (pun intended) to what you wrote earlier. If you were so confident in your previous writing, you wouldn’t need to write another “save face” article. Really, that’s all I got from this one, you merely doing the CYA policy for yourself. Regardless if you were ‘asked’ to write this.
I write opinion pieces every day; I never have to go back and write one “explaining” my own free speech. I don’t think you have anyone fooled here, certainly by the lack of responses.
You are very popular now in the online community now; as a joke I’m afraid. I guess you will have the last laugh, though it might be the crying laugh.
I don’t have any problem with Officer Teach stating his opinion. That is protected by the first amendment.
The problem I have with the article is that Officer Teach disregards the cyclists’ legal right to share the road and abdicates his mandate to enforce the laws of Chattanooga, including those that protect that right.
The person who engaged in the hit and run with the cyclist is not simply an (expletive).
A person is an (expletive) if they don’t tip their waiter… or if they yell at babies and make them cry.
A person who engages in a hit and run is a felon and should be pursued with the full force of law.
THAT is the frustration that you hear in the voices of cyclists, Officer Teach.
The fact is, it isn’t ourselves that we take seriously. We take the crime of hit-and-run seriously, which you appear to take flippantly.
Anotherretiredcop – your words are right on target; unfortunately, I believe they will be lost on this apparently arrogant man. He’s now completely in defense mode and is most likely exercising a great deal of denial at this moment. You, though, get it. Thank you for that!
The easiest way to dehumanize someone is to reduce them to a statistic. I was not offended by your jokes at someone being referred to as “prominent” but your attitude that the victim was just a statistic reflects a lack of compassion. When you get to the point in your career where you no longer feel compassion for those you are supposed to serve, your ability to be an effective public servant is strongly diminished. I don’t want you to lose your job over something like this (again, it’s about compassion) but I hope you will reflect on your bitterness and arrogance and at whose expense your wonderfully popular column thrives. The victims have family members living in your community that need sympathy, not cute jokes.
Scot Miller says:
Quote) “What a coward you are to try and hide behind the thin veil of “freedom of speech”. You sir, are simply a condescending, pompous a-hole…….plain and simple.” (/End Quote
-Personally, I think Mr. Miller here summed it up best. Take note before your next eco-terrorist meeting at Starbucks.
Pretty much, I have to agree with everyone above who has taken you to task for your insensitivity to those who lost their father/husband. I know how to read, and it was clear what you were saying. As a bicyclist who desires to use the bicycle instead of my truck, I certainly hope that, if I ever am in an accident, hit by a car or truck, you are not the officer who responds to the call. I would want someone to come who upholds the law and doesn’t think I deserve what I get when someone else breaks that law. After your article, I certainly don’t believe you wold be that police officer, and that is very sad.
Teach,
How does your weigh differential theory (between cars and bikes) explain the 40,000 – 50,000 (that’s 40-50 THOUSAND) other motor vehicle fatalities each year in this country?
Your deficient understanding of the various disciplines of your job (the law, statistical data about law enforcement matters, etc) is as disturbing as your adolescent assertion of your free speech rights without ever considering your professional obligations or what the law really is regarding public employee free speech rights. Instead of trying to uphold the laws of physics (they take of themselves) why don’t you uphold the laws you a sworn to uphold.
Bravo, Officer Teach! Two words (and I’m sure all your cycling fans will appreciate them)… “Live Strong!”