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.

-Personally, I think Mr. Miller here summed it up best. Take note before your next eco-terrorist meeting at Starbucks.

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.

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.

“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.