13-year-old bicyclist seriously injured after collision in Tahoe area
A 13-year-old girl was seriously injured Saturday morning after the bicycle she was riding was struck by a car in the South Lake Tahoe area.
The California Highway Patrol reports that the girl was riding an E-bike when she was hit by an Acura MDX at the intersection of Lake Tahoe Boulevard and Sawmill Road.
A CHP press release said she was thrown into the air and hit a 'snow-paddle marker.'
The girl, a resident of South Lake Tahoe, was transported to Barton Memorial Hospital with what the CHP called life-threatening injuries.
No information was available Sunday on her condition.
The car's driver, also a South Lake Tahoe resident, was described as a 56-year-old woman.
Witnesses to the accident are asked to call Officer M. Renk at the CHP's South Lake Tahoe area office, at (530) 539-9500.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
39 minutes ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Federal agents box in man accused of assaulting border patrol agent at LA protests
Video shows the moment federal officers took a man into custody they say is wanted on suspicion of assaulting a border patrol agent at an anti-ICE protest in Los Angeles. The agents boxed in the suspect's vehicle at an intersection in the Boyle Heights neighborhood while his partner and toddler were inside. The man's partner said he was at a protest in Paramount over the weekend and there was a warrant out for his arrest after a confrontation with authorities. A spokesperson for the US Department of Homeland Security indicated that the incident was not a hit-and-run, but rather, a 'targeted arrest of a violent rioter who punched a CBP officer.'
an hour ago
Turkish far-right politician accused of inciting hatred goes on trial
ANKARA, Turkey -- A Turkish far-right politician accused of inciting public hatred and hostility went on trial Wednesday in a case critics view as an effort to suppress opposition to the president. Umit Ozdag, the leader of Turkey's Victory Party, was detained in January over accusations he insulted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan with comments he made during a party meeting in Antalya. A day later Ozdag was formally arrested and charged with inciting hatred against migrants. He was blamed for last year's anti-Syrian refugee riots in the central Turkish province of Kayseri last year, during which hundreds of homes and businesses were attacked. Prosecutors have presented a series of posts from Ozdag's social media as evidence against him. He faces up to four years in prison if found guilty. Ozdag, a 64-year-old former academic, is an outspoken critic of Turkey's refugee policies and has previously called for the repatriation of millions of Syrian refugees. Ozdag acknowledged advocating the return of refugees at the opening hearing of his trial at a prison complex on the outskirts of Istanbul. He denied he had incited for violence against them and told the court he had worked to calm tensions in Kayseri. In his defense statement, Ozdag maintained that his imprisonment was politically motivated and aimed at silencing him over his criticism of the government's recent effort to end a decades-long conflict with the militant Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK. 'The reason why I am here ... is because I criticized the talks held with the PKK terrorist organization's chief,' Ozdag said. The Victory Party strongly opposes any concessions to the PKK which Turkey, along with many Western states including the United States, Britain and the European Union, considers a terrorist organization. The conflict with the PKK has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths since the 1980s. When the trial opened Wednesday, Ozdag's lawyers requested more time to prepare, and the proceedings were adjourned until Tuesday. The politician's trial comes amid a widespread crackdown on the opposition to Erdogan's Justice and Development Party. Officials from municipalities controlled by the main opposition — the Republican People's Party, or CHP — have faced waves of arrests this year. Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu was detained in March over allegations of corruption. Many people in Turkey consider the cases to be politically driven, according to opinion polls. However, Erdogan's government insists the courts are impartial and free from political involvement. Imamoglu is widely viewed as the main challenger to Erdogan's two-decade rule and is the CHP's candidate for the next presidential election. The election is due in 2028 but could be held earlier.
