NBC12: Woman ticketed for daughter using chalk on Belle Isle rock
This is not the chalk in question.
Officer Stacy Rogers patrols Belle Isle. He’s the one that wrote the ticket.
He said his goal is to keep the park clean for everybody.
“Essentially what we’re trying to do is leave behind only footprints when they come into the parks,” Rogers said.
He said chalk doesn’t always wash away in the rain and often city crews have to come clean it.
File under ridiculous
stupid
Well, studies have proven that it’s only a small step from chalk to spray paint. And by 4 years old, a kid already has his/her future ordained as far as criminal acts or lack of same go
Really? Banned from city parks? Totally absurd.
One would think with all of the real crime going on in our neighborhood, efforts might be better focused elsewhere.
Broken windows theory of law enforcement?
boo!
Ok, a ticket and told I could not go to any city parks…a bit much in my opinion. I get the ticket, not the ban.
We went down last summer to hang out on the rocks and we were unable to sit and relax because many of the rocks we wanted to sit on were taken. We spotted an open area but when we got there it was covered with chalk from some earlier doodling in the day. Keep it on your street or driveway, my family does. Think of it like this, if everyone came down and drew one little thing on one rock all of the rocks would be covered with chalk. Just trying to toss out some perspective.
Unfortunate situation for both parties. I believe that officer is the same that patrols the parks by mountain bike. That officer provides a police presence in areas that could be abused. This is definitely the fine line between enforcement and discretion.
avoid the tickets and come join thousands of your closest friends as we chalk up carytown.
http://www.facebook.com/events/203408456430558/
you have one cop trying to watch over hundreds of park users over miles of trail, i for one appreciate the order and security he provides when i visit the park. if you get defensive and argumentative over any violation of the law, you probably will get ticketed. if he says park resources sometimes have to come out and scrub chalk, why don’t you believe him? when is a drawing too big or not appropriate?
I think leaving behind only footprints is a good policy in a public park.
I’ve found Officer Rogers to be polite, professional, and reasonable. We are fortunate to have him patrolling our area. On one of the newscasts, the woman stated that she has taken her daughter down to use chalk on the rocks many times in the past. I’m guessing that the officer may have warned her about this at some point, and resorted to the ticket when she didn’t take his warnings seriously. Also, the photo shown on the news was taken by the woman herself and appears to show an “upper end” of a drawing. We really don’t know what the extents of the markings were. I for one don’t want to see rocks marked up with chalk. I’m also guessing that the banishment from City parks is not a given, just something that a judge could impose as part of a maximum sentence. I view media stories with skepticism, since any stories I’ve known the facts on were sensationalized when they appeared on the news.
I really have to agree with Courtney above. One would think that with all the break-ins, etc. lately in our area that the police should focus on crime…not chalk.
Additionally, “He said chalk doesn’t always wash away in the rain and often city crews have to come clean it.”: Really? If this is the case then it seems to be a pretty serious waste of money on the city’s part. Then again, if they are handing out $300 tickets for chalk drawing then I guess they can afford it.
Completely ridiculous!
The “Leave behind only footprints” policy should be followed by every park visitor.
The $300 fine and ban seem excessive but I support Officer Rogers in his quest to enforce the laws of our public spaces.
I’m sure it’s not popular, but I have to agree that it’s not cool to let people graffiti the rocks, kids or adults. They might think it’s fun, but it ruins it for everyone. Banning them from all public parks seems harsh if it is a first/only offense, but maybe there is more to the story. They should make them have to clean up behind others for a while, which might help them appreciate what happens when people misuse a public area.
(I’ve edited out part of this comment. No name calling folks, keep it civil. Thanks – RWH) Plenty other ways to utilize the resources that pay his salary like not spending 30 mins arguing with some lady and her kid over chalk. A shame his behavior reflects poorly on police everywhere. I’m calling the Lt. today and my councilman.
I think this needs to be filed under “two sides to every story.” And I’m guessing there may have been a bit of attitude/defiance on the other side that upped the chance of getting a ticket and banished instead of a warning. Personally, I’d rather not see a nature park decorated in chalk. It may not be permanent, but it looks just as bad as spray paint to those that visit the park before it washes away.
Yes, when I go to Belle Isle, the worst problem I encounter is not the broken glass, debris, and unleashed dogs but the chalk drawings. Come on.
The problem here is that officers ask for all this discretion to do their job, but then they balk when they actually have to be responsible for how they exercise it. Let’s be clear: in a park with so many actual dangers and violations, focusing on chalk drawings by a 4 year old isn’t merely “enforcing the law” — it’s choosing to enforce the laws that incur the least effort and risk. In other words, Richmond Police have demonstrated that they are not only injudicious and petty but lazy and cynical as well.
Maybe some officers are not like this. What they should do, then, is reprimand their “brother in blue” instead of falling in line behind him — as if his career and/or tender feelings are more important than our rights. And we shouldn’t fawn over their badges so grossly that we forget they work for us and we have a right and a duty to admonish their transgressions. Why even care about and pay attention to our neighborhoods if we’re just going to let the best armed gang roam at will and do as they please?
“I’m guessing that the officer may have warned her about this at some point, and resorted to the ticket when she didn’t take his warnings seriously.”
AND
“I’m also guessing that the banishment from City parks is not a given, just something that a judge could impose as part of a maximum sentence.”
BUT
“I view media stories with skepticism, since any stories I’ve known the facts on were sensationalized when they appeared on the news.”
Is it any wonder why police feel completely free to abuse their power? If they do something we should be skeptical about, we’ll instead be skeptical of the reporting and dream up reasons why what they did MIGHT have been justifiable.
I consider this person a poor neighbor.
I agree with all of the above who stated that the amount of the fine PLUS the parks ban was excessive. Here’s a compromise: why not waive both if the mother scrubs off the chalk herself? Arrange for a specific day-and-time inspection, and if the results are approved, at least waive the parks ban, and perhaps reduce the fine to something nominal ($20?). A deterrent, at least to that person, and the desired result – a clean rock! Win-win.
Until one knows all the facts, one should hold off on judging Stacy Rogers as harshly as some have done here. He’s a good officer who really cares about our community. Period. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Stacy Rogers is an outstanding officer and we are very lucky to have him patrolling JRPS. He is committed to making JRPS a safer, more lawful area which the park desparately needs. When it comes to policing Belle Isle….the more the merrier. Am fairly confident that NBC12 doesn’t have the “real” story here.
Thank you Officer Rogers and Go RPD!
$300 fine and banning a mother of a small child from all City Parks for this is just excessive. This is a case of low hanging fruit. Addressing the littering, actual graffiti, drug use, public intoxication and violent crime on Belle Isle is a tough job, so I guess you have to start somewhere. Why not go after small children and their moms for no good reason, that’ll send the right message to actual wrong-doers and rest of the community.
So the thought process is:
1. Read story
2. Form desired conclusion
3. Don’t worry about having all those pesky facts
4. Jump to desired conclusion
What facts are outstanding, Phil? Maybe you’re waiting to find out what the exact temperature was that day, or what Officer Rogers had for breakfast? Never know what facts might be relevant!
http://images.memegenerator.net/images/200x/3431301.jpg
All details aside: was it illegal or not? Officer Rogers saw someone doing something he felt illegal and wrote a ticket. If you think it’s excessive or unjust, change the law and/or punishment, but I think it’s not fair to judge the guy who did his job to the best of his ability as described in the laws we set forth or say he should go catch murderers and the like. His job is to patrol the parks and uphold the laws there, which he was doing.
@Jeremy: Had she been warned before? What was the nature of her response to the officer? See, I wasn’t there so I don’t know all the facts. Rather than automatically condemning the RPD based on limited information (as you have done), I’ll withhold my judgement until I know more. It’s called objectivity, and I prefer it over subjectivity, or even sarcasm.
Let’s see, 1 angry parent gets a ticket on the weekend,
how many breakins at reedy creek did not occur because there was a police car there, how many glass bottles were confiscated that might cut a person or dog’s paw, how many thieves decided it was not a good day to steal a fisherman’s or sunbather’s bag, how many lost souls were given directions, how many parents felt more secure that a police officer was patrolling the area, how many kids decided it wasn’t a good idea to break those bottle on the rocks or throw stones at the kayakers, how many bikers and hikers on the trail felt more secure if they got injured, how much beer and wine was not consumed in public, how many drug deals didn’t take place, how many fights did not occur, how many people decided to clean up after themselves, overall, the police presence in the park is a net positive on any day.
^-Rich I agree but it is a matter of prioritizing limited resources. No one is arguing it’s not a good thing that we have a police presence in the park, I think what people are upset about is it seems like (admittedly face value, not all the facts) Officer Rogers was not using his best judgement in allocating those resources (his time) appropriately when he is ticketing kids for chalk and like you said, a whole host of other crimes may be being committed.
So you’re saying, Phil, that an organization with a $79 million a year budget, with paid public relations professionals who have no other job than to deal with the media and make the department look good, failed to instruct Officer Rogers to tell the reporter relevant facts that cast his actions in a good light? I suppose that’s possible, but I’m really meeting you more than halfway there.
You are right: we don’t know all the facts about either party. The mom might have had warrant out. The officer might have a history of intrusive patrolling (RPD has a history of heavy handedness). In spite of lacking omniscience, we still have to make responsible decisions as citizens about how to assert our rights based on what we _do_ know. That’s what a free people do: they hold those with power to account based on what they can observe.
I judge Officer Rogers based on the facts I know, and if the facts change the situation, I will change my judgment. But I won’t handle those who wield deadly force with kid gloves. The burden of proof is always on them, not on us.
Well put, Willis.
I based my original comments on having seen Officer Rogers numerous times working and doing a great job. I don’t understand why people see one story on the news and then assume that the police aren’t going after “actual wrong-doers” or real criminals. They definitely are and they are making a difference. I have personally seen Officer Rogers chase a suspect who had broken a car’s windows and stolen items from the vehicle, catch and arrest the suspect. Also, if you check the police reports, you’ll see how many “actual wrong-doers” have been arrested.
^FH resident. I don’t know why you assume that you are the only one who knows Stacey personally or has interacted with him. I ride my bike to and from work most days and know him personally through co-workers. His bad attitude aside this isn’t an opinion based on one news story, I’ve always felt uneasy around him and his pushy demeanor. One of my bikes has “cutthroats” bike club on the downtube as I got the frame from a member of the club. One day Stacey made me feel particularly uncomfortable with his probing statements about the participants in the group and his relationship with Parks and Recs staff with the city and his instance on signage needed on trails which Parks staff disagreed with. Officer Rogers is pushy and it comes off poorly. I don’t want to be interrogated by him so he can push his agenda in the park system. In this case his judgement has been extremely poor to this point and to continue to justify this expulsion from the Park system to the media is poor form and bad public policy. In my opinion he needs to spend a couple weeks in a Patrol Car handing out speeding tickets while someone more qualified to maintain reasonable judgement about how to enforce the laws of the city is given the sweet assignment of doing something I would love to do all day, ride your mountain bike in the park. Not saying his job is easy or that we have all the facts here but other people posting here do know him and aren’t comfortable with he policing methodology.
Wow, a police officer enforces the law and citizens get annoyed with the police officer, instead of directing their annoyance at the less-than-responsible and less-than-respectful mom.
This entire situation was entirely avoidable: all mom had to do was act like an adult and not treat (and teach her kid to treat) a public park like a personal chalkboard.
“In the end we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught.” ~Baba Dioum
@ Stuffa, you are confusing ministration and administration of justice. These criminal justice practices guide how police officers do their jobs. Reasonable people can disagree about which procedures were prudent for an officer to follow in a given set of circumstances. So yes, sometimes when an officer “enforces the law” as you stated, it can be an exercise in the correct administration of justice which is dependent on exercising discretion by assessing the context of each and every situation. Some of us here feel that the officer in this case seems to have failed to exercise good judgement in using his discretion in how to administer the laws of the Commonwealth in this instance. Please see link below:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/205/205lect09.htm
Thanks Willis but I am not confused at all.
@ Stuffa, ok that’s fine so I think as adults we can reasonably agree that our interpretations of what the reasonable application of the law was in this instance are different. I thank you for your civility and respectfully disagree with you in this instance. We can still be friends and neighbors though! ;)
“Wow, a police officer enforces the law and citizens get annoyed with the police officer, instead of directing their annoyance at the less-than-responsible and less-than-respectful mom.”
Wow, citizens having the audacity to exercise oversight over how RPD enforces the laws, instead of keeping their heads down and hoping it’s not them next.
“This entire situation was entirely avoidable: all mom had to do was act like an adult and not treat (and teach her kid to treat) a public park like a personal chalkboard.”
This entire situation was entirely avoidable: all officer friendly had to do was remind the mom of the park rules and go on his merry way, exercising discretion instead of a robotic, bureaucratic adherence to strictly interpreting the law.
Here’s a fun question define graffiti; is it only permanent? Wash off graffiti is accepted in our parks?
No I say whether a VCU art student wanting to “tag” or a 4fun year old with chalk we park lovers didn’t ask for it so don’t do it. Same attitude I have with my personal home I’ll let ya know what’s allowed and what isn’t parks are all of our homes
Jeremy we’ll just have to disagree, but the facts remain the same: ultimately the root of the problem lies with the parent of the child, not with the police officer doing his job. You appear to be basing your opinions on a set of assumptions, i.e. that the fine was heavy handed for a first time offender. That may have been the second or third time he asked her to stop her child from defacing public property: after all, by her own admission she is a repeat offender.
On a side note: Why does a parent take chalk for their kid to such a park, anyway? Last time I checked there was more than enough bird life, animal life, scenery and more to look at while there.
“Jeremy we’ll just have to disagree, but the facts remain the same: ultimately the root of the problem lies with the parent of the child, not with the police officer doing his job.”
That isn’t a fact. It’s your opinion — one you’re entitled to, certainly, but not a demonstrable reality. First, the officer’s job entails not simply mechanically enforcing laws but using discretion to use his time — our time, really, since we pay for it — best. There’s a thousands upon thousands of laws broken every day — the idea that he’s responsible for ensuring all of them are followed is absurd. So he’s going to need to use some judgment, and he should be hired or fired based largely on his ability to exercise same.
Second, I fundamentally disagree that a parent letting a child draw on a rock with chalk is a problem in any reasonable sense. It might be a violation of the law, but people violate laws all the time without bringing the system down. Ever speed?
The cop wants it both ways: he wants flexibility to do his job as best as possible, but when that flexibility is used in the service of an absurd end, he claims he had no choice because “the law’s the law”.
“You appear to be basing your opinions on a set of assumptions, i.e. that the fine was heavy handed for a first time offender.”
No such assumption is being made by me. I don’t know the criminal record of the mom here. It’s irrelevant to me. Involving police with chalk wielding children is itself heavy handed, regardless of whether the outcome is ticketing, arrest, stern talking-to, etc. It’s called the “chilling effect” because it deals with people’s general sense of liberty in their communities. Fining somebody for it is more like an outrage.
“Why does a parent take chalk for their kid to such a park, anyway?”
Now we’re inserting ourselves in the private lives of individuals — all while insisting we can’t question the actions of the one figure in this story who works for the public! Again, you’re entitled to your prejudices, as I am mine, but it seems a bit silly and backwards.
And there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a police officer vs. the courts. He saw what he perceives to be a violation of the law, for which the penalty MAY BE A FINE OF $300. The ticket is a charge, it’s not a convcition. The alleged offender has a chance to go to court and contest. The officer did not fine the individual $300…he simply charged her. (And it seems to me he was doing his job appropriately and with discretion.).)
I back having a presence at the park as long as it’s positive. On this day, for some reason, it was despicable.
I have yet to see colored chalk NOT wash off in the rain, or a flooding. I doubt this woman has $300 to spend on something this insane. I further doubt she will be able to explain to a 4 yr. old why Mommy cannot take her to the park.
Collect a ticket and have the city come clean it. Taking money to spend the money…..I am sorry. I don’t care how great this cop is, he made a stupid and thoughtless decision here.
Stuffa’s right. The real crime here is that the mother cannot distinguish between a boulder at Belle Isle and a sidewalk. And she’s passing her ignorance onto her child. Perhaps when she learns to appreciate the difference, they’ll let back in the park.
“Second, I fundamentally disagree that a parent letting a child draw on a rock with chalk is a problem in any reasonable sense. It might be a violation of the law, but people violate laws all the time without bringing the system down.”
Oh good grief.
I have to agree with Tommy and Stuffa here. Who among us would let our children use chalk on the rocks at Belle Isle (besides Jeremy and Willis)?
All Right. I’ll bite. So no one here ever breaks a law ever right? WE MUST ENFORCE ALL THE LAWS! Well, here are a few on the books in VA which I am sure get broken fairly frequently. We probably need to grab our pitchforks and start enforcing these laws god forbid the atrocities that should ensue…..good grief indeed:
1.) Driving without shoes, illegal
2.)Oral and Anal Sex, Illegal
3.) Sex with the lights on (or anything other than missionary style) illegal
4.)Tickling a woman, Illegal
5.)Culpepper, no washing your mule on Sundays, illegal
6.)Dayton VA, No black people in town after 7pm, illegal
7.) Richmond VA, flip a coin to see who pays the bill in a restaurant, illegal (thinking about breaking this one tonight)
8.)Prince William County, cussing at people, illegal (thinking of breaking this one currently)
9.)Amazingly, it is legal to beat your wife in Stafford as long as it is on the courthouse steps and before 8pm (good thing too cause all my arguments usually happen before 8 anyway)
10.) Guess we should tell the nice folks on New Kent that they won’t be having any Halloween Trick or Treating this year because letting your kids trick or treat is, that’s right, ILLEGAL!
Better Honk your Horn when you pass other cars, not doing so, Illegal.
Code of the City, Don’t throw a baseball, football, or bring a basketball in the park unless it is in a designated area. (Probably no soccer balls either) so next time you wanna throw some pigskin remember, it’s illegal, unless it’s on a football field.
http://search.municode.com/html/16118/level4/PTIICICO_CH26CINEREES_ARTIXUSPUGRPAPLPL_DIV1GE.html#PTIICICO_CH26CINEREES_ARTIXUSPUGRPAPLPL_DIV1GE_S26-385USCEPODEACON
Never lye on a bench, it’s illegal:
http://search.municode.com/html/16118/level4/PTIICICO_CH26CINEREES_ARTIXUSPUGRPAPLPL_DIV1GE.html#PTIICICO_CH26CINEREES_ARTIXUSPUGRPAPLPL_DIV1GE_S26-390CATELYBE
Walk on asphalt in track or baseball shoes, illegal:
http://search.municode.com/html/16118/level4/PTIICICO_CH26CINEREES_ARTIXUSPUGRPAPLPL_DIV1GE.html#PTIICICO_CH26CINEREES_ARTIXUSPUGRPAPLPL_DIV1GE_S26-389WEBAFOTRSHASSU
Don’t park next to Forest Hill Park after the park closes, illegal:
http://search.municode.com/html/16118/level4/PTIICICO_CH26CINEREES_ARTIXUSPUGRPAPLPL_DIV1GE.html#PTIICICO_CH26CINEREES_ARTIXUSPUGRPAPLPL_DIV1GE_S26-400PAPEJARIPAFOHIPA
Never Spit in on the Sidewalk, Illegal
(I’m just going to go ahead and quit posting the links now, you get the idea)
And Finally, I hope your dog or cat has been registered in the city and your taxes are up to date because there is a tax on that ($10 per year) and if you haven’t done it, that’s a Class 4 misdemeanor.
[...] creating. My beef is with the top. And my beef today is this ridiculous headline I read on my neighborhood blog: Woman Ticketed for Daughter Using Chalk on Belle Isle. What? $300 fine? What? Banned from all City [...]
Willis, last time I checked, there was no state law prohibiting barefoot driving. How about citing a source for that one.
Stuffa. I stand corrected. This is no longer the law in VA.
Thank you.
9.)Amazingly, it is legal to beat your wife in Stafford as long as it is on the courthouse steps and before 8pm (good thing too cause all my arguments usually happen before 8 anyway)
LMAO! Thanks Willis…that made my day!
FYI: NBC12 is running a follow up tonight at 11pm with more information.
Apparently Ms. Mortensen, when she said “I don’t have a record,” meant “I got the very same ticket from the very same officer for the very same thing – only with paint – two years ago,” which I suppose wouldn’t have played as well on the news. She also has yet to pay the first ticket.
I don’t necessarily agree with chalk being a turrible thing on a rock next to a river, but as a previous poster mentioned, it never would have occurred to me to make that a part of a trip to BI with my kids.
Stacy’s been demonized here by people who seem to forget that it is his job to protect OUR park, and that he views it from a law enforcement standpoint, not that of a casual park user.
If I wanted to sit down on a rock I wouldn’t want chalk all over my rear end or on a beach towel. Some people are just not very considerate of others.
What Jennifer C said.
Ditto, Jennifer C.
“But we’ve learned there’s more to the story. This isn’t Mortensen’s first run in with the law on Belle Isle. We found a copy of court records showing she was ticketed for the same destruction of property charge almost two years from the day of this most recent offense.
Friday, she revealed back in 2010 she was using paint on the rocks and was given the same ticket with a $250 fine.”
Kudos to Stacy Rogers.
It’s my understanding the mom already has received a ticket for this once, hence the ban. Beyond that WHY is she taking her child to an area frequented by drunks, drug abusers, homeless, train-hoppers, gutterpunks, etc !?
Gee, John – I take my kids to Belle Isle all the time. I think you can add “parents with kids” to the list.
[...] when I had that post about the mom that got banned from Belle Isle for allowing her child to use chalk on a rock? It was one of my [...]
[...] Chalkgate – Skatepark - Bye-bye Pollo [...]