Border wall

Fatal Texas SUV Crash a Result of Irresponsible Policing, Not Poor Border Security

We'd be outraged by the unnecessary pursuit if Americans had been killed.

|

When a sheriff says it's "good police work" that led to a high-speed chase that ended in a catastrophic collision and five deaths, we should be very, very concerned.

That's what happened on Sunday in Texas when a chase by Border Patrol agents and Dimmit County deputies ended in deadly disaster. According to multiple media reports, Border Patrol agents suspected a trio of vehicles in Carrizo Springs, Texas, were transporting illegal immigrants. They gave chase and managed to get two of the vans to stop. The third kept on going and a Dimmit County deputy picked up the chase. The pursuit reached speeds of 100 miles per hour before the van apparently lost control and crashed near Big Wells:

The van was carrying 14 people. Four people died in the crash. A fifth died later at the hospital. While officials believe many of the people were in the country illegally (the driver, though, is apparently a U.S. citizen) there's nothing in any of the reporting that suggests officials suspected any of these people were dangerous or engaged in violent activities. It may turn out that they were, but for now all we know is that authorities believed they were illegal immigrants.

If this high-speed chase involved American citizens we'd be asking some really tough questions about why law enforcement officials insisted on such a dangerous pursuit to stop people who, as far as they knew, were not involved in any violent behavior. People may recall that, in that famous case about the Utah nurse who was arrested for refusing to draw a comatose patient, that comatose man was in the hospital because he was struck by a car fleeing police. He later died. The case raised some questions as to whether the police involved were trying to get something on the victim that would protect themselves from criticism or legal liability for the chase.

But because this chase and deadly crash involved immigrants, there's no discussion about safe policing practices at all. Instead, Sheriff Marion Boyd says this is all about border security, which is the equivalent of blaming a no-knock SWAT raid in which police intended to arrest a low-level marijuana dealer on the inability to stem the flow of synthetic fentanyl into the United States from China.

"I think we need a wall, in my opinion," Boyd said in an interview after the deadly crash. He says he sees lots of drug and illegal immigrants crossing the border and thinks the problem is a lack of security.

If that wall ends up being built, he's going to end up being disappointed when it doesn't stop illegal immigration. Prohibitions have never stopped drug trafficking, so he should know better at this point.

The lack of a border wall or more advanced border security didn't cause the reckless police decisions that led to this deadly crash any more than an American citizen's drug habit caused police to shoot his dog during a militarized drug raid. It's grotesque that the irresponsibility of the police is ignored because of the citizenship of the people they were pursuing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

120 responses to “Fatal Texas SUV Crash a Result of Irresponsible Policing, Not Poor Border Security

  1. We’d be outraged by the unnecessary pursuit if Americans had been killed.

    I’d like 100 on “nope” please.

    1. Maybe if it was the drivers in blue.

    2. Well, I would be.

      1. Do you consider yourself representative of the greater “we?
        I don’t. Hence my wager.

        But to be fair, he didn’t specify which we, libertarians or the general public. I’d say the chances are pretty good with libertarians and virtually nil among the general public.

        1. I don’t like that “greater we” (but it probably is what they meant). “We” is me and the people I’m talking to.

          1. Take it up with the author.

            1. Nah, it’s just my peculiarity. But it would be nice if instead of “we” they’d say “Americans” or whatever it is that they really meant.

              1. I think that is perfectly reasonable, as I too was obviously unclear on exactly what he meant, and just doing my best to discuss the article in context.

    3. I would not take that bet. Given the number of cop-fluffers out there (not on this site, but in general) who excuse any and all law enforcement over-reach, something tells me a lot of people’s reactions would be “Well, don’t run from the cops and you won’t end up dead.”

      1. Don’t run from the cops unless you know you’re going to get away.

        1. Most often with something that goes well over 130mph and mostly in rural areas. OR you’re REALLY REALLY good at cardio.

  2. “But because this chase and deadly crash involved immigrants, there’s no discussion about safe policing practices at all.”

    These crashes with large numbers of illegal immigrants in a van are relatively frequent near the border. I’d see them often in the news when I lived in San Diego. Feel free to criticize the relative appropriateness of any given stop, but when a smuggler is pulled over for any reason (even legitimate reasons), they often run rather than pull over. I don’t know what the police are supposed to do about that.

    Was the driver speeding?

    Was the license plate stolen?

    Was the van reported stolen?

    None of these offenses are violent Should the police stop pulling people over for these offenses because the van might be full of 14 illegal aliens?

    1. No, they should stop them if they have a legitimate reason to do so, but they should not engage in high speed chases. They create significant risks to innocent people who have nothing to do with the situation. Get the plates and a description and let them go. It’s not worth the risk to the public, the police or the driver being pursued and the passengers. I think the general policy should be that police not engage in high speed chases, perhaps with very special exceptions. It’s just not worth it.

      1. So much so that begging off pursuit is an actual policy in some jurisdictions.

      2. The problem is not police pursuing law breakers. The problem is police chasing suspects no matter what. Police are supposed to exercise Due Regard for people around them and that include other drivers not being killed during a police chase of minor criminals that can be caught in safer ways.

        Suspects cannot outrun a radio. Suspects can be followed by helicopter or airplane. Suspects can be road blocked.

        Pursuing a suspected shoplifter who was caught on video or camera does not need to be chased.

        Pursuing a suspect vehicle were the license plate is bogus might be something worth while. Using you head and blocking the path of the suspect vehicle is probably the better choice.

        1. Yes, there are almost always better options than a high speed chase. Innocent people could have easily been killed here. And that wouldn’t be all on the police, but they bear some responsibility.
          I think a lot of the reason for high speed chases is either cops being pissed that someone disrespects their authority or excited to have a chance to drive around like crazy. There are better ways to catch people who run.

          1. I think a lot of the reason for high speed chases is either cops being pissed that someone disrespects their authority…

            That’s it in a nutshell. Failure to obey gives the police an excuse to kill. And sadly there are a lot of people who become cops because they want to kill people.

            1. And almost all of your comments about the police are retarded.

        2. You think every jurisdiction has a police helicopter? Much less an airplane? Much less unlimited manpower to devote to staking out the next exit?

          1. Writing speeding tickets is much more important than safely stopping a police evader. /s

            Sending in SWAT teams to marijuana dealers property is much more important than safely stopping a police evader. /s

            Every state police agency has some kind of air assets.

            1. Every state police agency has some kind of air assets.

              To get flight clearance may take long enough for the suspects to disappear.

              1. Oh well. Shit happens. Sometimes its better for the criminal to get away than endanger innocents. Sometimes the crime is not worth injuring someone else to catch.

          2. If you don’t have the manpower then maybe, *maybe*, that arrest is not worth the risk? Its just a van full of illegals – that’s all they were going on here – so maybe there are other crime-prevention/investigation priorities?

            I won’t say stopping illegals (or pot smokers) is unimportant – but its not *the most important*.

        3. +1 to this.

          Illegal immigration might be a scourge but those people did not deserve to die for it.

          Give a chase, if the van of illegals is doing crazy, dangerous shit to get away then either let them go or back off and call in support to box them in if you really want to make that collar.

      3. It’s just not worth it.

        Why?

        At the time it happened, it was just a closed van suddenly taking off. No one knew what was inside the van. A body? Several bodies? Children for trafficking? A bomb? A shipment of illegal F&F weapons?

        You’re speaking from hindsight about the ‘worth’ of it all. At the moment, the stakes were very different. The unknowns meant that they couldn’t just let that van go.

        1. OK, let’s say it’s children being sex trafficked. Are they better of dead or grievously injured? Because that is a likely outcome if you engage in a high speed chase.

          A lot of high speed chases end in crashes. Innocent people get killed. That’s a real thing.

          If there is real reason to believe there is a bomb and they are heading to blow something up, maybe that’s justification for a chase.

          And I’m not speaking in hindsight about this case. This is something I have thought about and this has consistently been my opinion on high speed chases for a long time.

        2. You’ve just handed justification for police to stop everyone on the road at any time.

          I mean, the ‘unknowns’ meant that they should have just opened fire on the vehicle. For the children.

      4. By this logic police shouldn’t do anything but stake out doughnut shops. Too much of a risk to innocent people otherwise.

    2. Ding, ding, ding!!!! I believe we’ve found the “we” Scott was referring to.

    3. These crashes with large numbers of illegal immigrants in a van are relatively frequent near the border. I’d see them often in the news when I lived in San Diego.

      [citation needed]

      I live in San Diego, and crashes with large numbers of illegal immigrants in a van is not something I’m seeing “relatively frequent” (ly). More common to read about a boat abandoned on the shore.

      1. No citation required for anecdotes whatsoever–especially since my observations aren’t based on it.

        That being said, multiple illegal immigrants being hurt in a single van crash is so common, I’ve heard off color jokes about it over the years. A quick google search for “van crash illegal immigrants” or “overloaded van illegal immigrants” will probably bring up a dozen hits on your first page.

        I found this one from the 90s:

        http://articles.latimes.com/19…..immigrants

        Here’s another from 2012:

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-dead.html

        If you want more, do your own research–but why did you think it would be hard to find examples of vans overloaded with illegal aliens crashing near the border?

        1. Dozens of hits on the first page but you have two reports over a 22 year period? Not even two reports in 2018?

    4. I’d see them often in the news when I lived in San Diego.

      No you didn’t.

    5. 1. Was the driver speeding? No, the police should not be engaging in high speed pursuits over the commission of a civil infraction. If all you’ve got to go on is the driver was speeding, then you’ve got nothing.

      2. Was the license plate stolen – theft is violence.

      3. Was the van stolen – theft is violence.

      1. in Texas, when you run from the police it is a felony. This was not a civil infraction. even crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

  3. It’s grotesque that the irresponsibility of the police is ignored

    A refrain that applies to far too many situations.

  4. “If this high-speed chase involved American citizens we’d be asking some really tough questions about why law enforcement officials insisted on such a dangerous pursuit to stop people who, as far as they knew, were not involved in any violent behavior.”

    Would we?

    This kind of pursuit happens every day. On the rare occasions when it turns fatal, the cops are valorized for their heroism (even if they caused the fatal accident).

    1. Depends on who they mean by “we”.

  5. Foreign Affairs; Reno for President
    By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN APRIL 25, 2000
    Yup, I gotta confess, that now-famous picture of a U.S. marshal in Miami pointing an automatic weapon toward Donato Dalrymple and ordering him in the name of the U.S. government to turn over Elian Gonzalez warmed my heart. They should put that picture up in every visa line in every U.S. consulate around the world, with a caption that reads: ”America is a country where the rule of law rules. This picture illustrates what happens to those who defy the rule of law and how far our government and people will go to preserve it. Come all ye who understand that.”…

    1. ‘America is a country where the rule of law rules

      That would be great if it were true (how much respect do certain parts of the constitution get these days?) and if rule of law were a real thing.

      1. Rule of Law certainly does not work when some people use the Constitution as a punchline.

        Instead of repealing unconstitutional drug laws, lets ignore drug laws and create sanctuary cities where drug use is not punished.

        Instead of changing immigration laws, lets ignore immigration laws and create sanctuary cities where illegal immigration is rewarded.

        Rule…of….law.

        1. There is no rule of law. Never has been. Never will be. There is only arbitrary rule of man. Those who enforce the law can always ignore it. Who’s going to do anything about it? Same goes for prosecutors and judges. Who watches the watchmen? Nobody. So the watchmen do whatever they want. Rule of man.

          1. The rule of law requires many things to exist, but it is possible and it has existed in the U.S. before but not in living memory. One thing that might be said to be a requirement is, for example, the law to be knowable. Obviously, in this day and age the law is absolutely unknowable, and that’s a serious problem.

            I’m sympathetic to the notion that the law needs reform, quite badly in fact, but it’s obvious that the vast majority of the population in these United States prefers their labor protections to drive up their wages as opposed to caring about the plight of illegal immigrants. Note how many people are asking for a lower minimum wage, or fewer welfare programs. Nobody, really. That says a lot.

            However, that said, the United States lets in over a million legal immigrants a year so…it’s not all bad yeah?

            1. Well, you can have something that looks like rule of law if the law is knowable and what most people would consider reasonable and minimal and comports with most people’s moral sense. It also helps not to have a large, professional police force since, as sarcasmic often points out, the police are a significant source of lawlessness.

              I still don’t think rule of law is a real thing, though. It just looks like it is in certain situations where most people are happy to obey the law and the laws that do exist are more or less consistently enforced.

              1. The Rule of Law is the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.

                People have allowed the USA to move away from the Constitution and its limits. As corruption expands so does the Rule of Man.

                One huge example is that the Constitution does not allow government to ban anything. Even the Prohibitionists knew this and enacted the 8th Amendment to ban alcohol. Otherwise, there is no legal basis to ban alcohol.

                Imagine if judges had struck down the Substances Control Act as unconstitutional? Its an example of Rule of Man corruption.

                Rule of Law would have had judges strike down the law immediately and in an unanimous fashion.

          2. Anarchyville is never going to happen. Giving up on Rule of Law is not in our best interests.

            Demanding responsible and limited government is in our best interests.

            1. I’ll agree that it’s best to try to get to a state of affairs that resembles rule of law. But to get there, you need the law to be such that most people would obey it even without the threat of punishment.

              I’m some sort of anarchist, but not the kind that thinks anarchy is really a possible or even necessarily desirable state of affairs.

              1. Government is probably inevitable and at best a necessary evil.

                1. I agree and think its the best system for executing general powers, if kept very restricted and small.

              2. Zeb|6.18.18 @ 3:47PM|#
                I’ll agree that it’s best to try to get to a state of affairs that resembles rule of law. But to get there, you need the law to be such that most people would obey it even without the threat of punishment.
                I’m some sort of anarchist, but not the kind that thinks anarchy is really a possible or even necessarily desirable state of affairs.

                I remember that you said that you were an anarchist. I appreciate your openness to discuss the issue.

                Ideally, you want a government so restricted and so small that everyone can agree on its limited purposes. Roads for example. Its sucks to build your own roads and can be expensive. How can everyone have their own road when there are millions of drivers? One solution is government build and maintain roads for all drivers to use. Taxes of some sort need to be collected to pay for this government service.

                If taxes required were minimal and everyone agreed to reason then everyone would send in money hassle-free. Only minimal laws would necessary to execute the limited role of government.

                1. Enter the Founding Fathers, early America, the US Constitution, and state Constitutions.

                  Extrapolate that early government role to modern American government. A massive welfare state. A massive taxation and regulation state. A massive police and criminal law state.

                  We are now at a stage where you need legions of bureaucrats to create and enforce rules to chase down citizens that refuse to cooperate with government chasing down citizens.

                  The corruption and shift from limited government causes the shift from Rule of Law (limited laws) to Rule of Man (arbitrary and endless rules).

                  I get the desire to say fuck all that and want zero government. I advocate fighting for limited government instead and keeping that the status quo.

                  1. I advocate fighting for limited government instead and keeping that the status quo.

                    How do you have limited government when there is no incentive to undo bad rules?

                    Government is a one-way ratchet. Unintended consequences do not result in addressing the cause. They result in addressing the consequences with more bad rules. Then bad rules propagate like rabbits.

                    I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent ? the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority… while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?

                    -Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

        2. You should really read this.

          You seem to draw no distinction between law and legislation, and that respect I believe you are very misguided.

          1. “Law, Legislation, and the Trump Administration’s Cruelty” From your source, which is nonsense. If you consider your source informative, then you really need to get out more and check out other stuff.

            Maybe you don’t know the difference.

            “Legislation”- is what a Legislative body creates to become law. Synonyms include: body of laws, rules, rulings, regulations, acts, bills, statutes, enactments,

            “Natural Law”- 1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
            2. an observable law relating to natural phenomena.

            “Law”- has to numerous definitions to list here.

            “Rule of Law”- 1. the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.

            1. I see you read nothing but the headline. I expected no less.

      2. I don’t think you get the rule of law in place by saying “fuck it, no one adheres to the rule of law” but maybe that’s just me.

        1. Did someone say that was the case?

          1. That would be great if it were true (how much respect do certain parts of the constitution get these days?) and if rule of law were a real thing.

            You. Right there. Did you forget how to read?

            1. No, you misunderstand me. I don’t think that the rule of law is something that can possibly exist. I’m not sure it’s even a sensible thing to talk about. Laws are just words and traditions. Only individuals rule and wield power. Preferably they do so as little as possible and in a way that comports with societal mores and traditions so that people will for the most part rule themselves and only antisocial outliers need attention of law enforcement.

              1. Zeb, do you think Rule of Law cannot be maintained because human nature? Anarchism keeps the corrupt government from becoming a thing in the first place? Is that why you lean anarchist?

    2. That is a man who had, for a long time, praised the effectiveness of the Chinese government over the federal republic of the USA. It comes honestly, besides that was under a Clinton.

  6. While officials believe many of the people were in the country illegally (the driver, though, is apparently a U.S. citizen) there’s nothing in any of the reporting that suggests officials suspected any of these people were dangerous or engaged in violent activities.

    Wait…I though human trafficking is the new slavery. That makes coyotes the new white slavers. That makes all violence again whitey perfectly acceptable.

    You’re welcome Reason.

  7. We’ll they did have 14 people crammed into a vehicle designed for 9 at the most, so a simple roll-over crash for the average car wouldn’t have killed anyone. There were 14 because they were the contraband being smuggled. The operative word being “smuggled”.

    1. “Well…”

    2. We’ll they did have 14 people crammed into a vehicle designed for 9 at the most

      Which has fuck-all to do with the relative merits of the police engaging in a high speed pursuit of non-violent criminals. Also, there are vans that can seat as many as 15, which is probably what the charred husk in the photo accompanying this article was (admittedly it’s hard to tell for sure).

      so a simple roll-over crash for the average car wouldn’t have killed anyone

      The pursuit reached speeds of 100 miles per hour before the van apparently lost control and crashed near Big Wells:

      How many roll over crashes at 100 mph have you survived? I don’t think there’s anything “simple” about a roll over crash, let alone one where the vehicle was traveling 100 mph before losing control. Actually, based on the photo it’s amazing anyone survived.

      1. They people who died, died because they were thrown from the vehicle, because they weren’t belted in, because there weren’t enough safety belts, because they were carrying 14 people, because they were being smuggled and extra people crammed in equals extra revenue for the coyotes. So all else being equal, smuggling illegals is more lethal than not smuggling illegals when running from the cops.

  8. Dimmit County sheriff calls for border wall after 5 killed in chase, crash

    You know, if you flip that second m upside down it doesn’t change the gist of the headline at all.

  9. We get it. Just like with the barrage of articles about tax cut, and the tariffs, we get it.

    Reason is not in favor of open borders or unfettered immigration, but is in favor of policies that implement it de facto.

    1. 50 years of support for these kinds of policies is quite the barrage, eh?

      1. Wait, you pick that to respond to instead of clarifying “we”?

        1. The royal we. You know, the editorial.

          1. I was just assured in the Dalmia thread that such a thing does not exist at Reason, I am so disillusioned.

      2. It’s the flood of articles they seem to be do about the cause du jour.

        Were they known for a dozen or more similar articles on immigration, taxes, tarriffs, etc. in a week in years past?

        If they want to turn people off and have them shuffle past an article, go nuts.

  10. Another open borders article using a tenuous tie to police reform in order to make me care? I am not an open borders proponent. I support deporting people who aren’t in this country legally. I don’t particularly like leaving it up to an officer’s hunch to go out of his way to apprehend people that are suspected of being here illegally. Let’s agree that there wasn’t a strong legal reason for the officer to stop the van. That part would be on the officer. That doesn’t mean the driver is off the hook for speeding and trying to evade the police. What caused the deaths of 4 people? (plus 1/5 of them? 1/5 of the original 14? 1/5 of the remaining 10? Are we talking about 6 deaths or 6.8 deaths? clunky wording) The driver was speeding and lost control while trying to evade the cops to avoid facing any sort of justice for illegal activities he was already engaged in. I doubt he would try to run like that if innocent or suspected he was being pulled over for speeding. Is the fault on the side of the people attempting to enforce our laws or the person attempting to subvert both our laws and any repercussions for breaking them?
    I would pin the blame on the driver even if the person was a model citizen guilty of only having an expired inspection sticker and yet chose to try to run from the cops when flashing blue lights appeared in the mirror. It’s possible to disagree with the laws and still think enforcement of those laws is part of maintaining social order

    1. Don’t care if you don’t want to. I read this article as being about police tactics and the attempts of others to tie the incident to immigration policy.

    2. A fifth. A fifth passenger died.

    3. The driver was speeding and lost control while trying to evade the cops to avoid facing any sort of justice for illegal activities he was already engaged in.

      Right. And it’s not like the cops had any other option other than to chase after them, right? I mean, it’s not like they have radios in their cars where they could call ahead and set up a road block, or call in an aircraft to track the van from the air, or get the van’s license plate and apprehend the driver later. No, they had no choice but to engage in a high speed pursuit that very easily could have endangered the lives of innocent third parties. As for the 5 passengers who did die – fuck ’em, am I right?

      Because cops are like wild animals, really. When they see something try to run, their primal prey instincts kick in and they must chase after it, like a dog chasing a rabbit even though the odds of catching it are so slim.

      1. The driver sees police and increases his speed well beyond the legal limit. It is the police’s fault that he gave them a legitimate reason for pursuit? At this point he is breaking a few laws regardless of his cargo. The driver creates a risk by speeding. Do the police let him go because it would also be a danger to pursue? Were those alternative options you list available and reasonably able to be deployed in this instance? Would they have been effective?
        It sounds to me a lot like “if he is trying to get away and behaving dangerously, then we should let him go.” That’s great policy. I’ll just run and resist arrest every time if this is what police are allowed to do.
        It definitely sucks that 5 people died. As with deaths from drunk driving, we should place a majority of the blame on the driver who was driving unsafely. What methods to stop someone who is unwilling to stop would you advocate for? Each of the alternatives you offered give a lot of leeway for the person to escape. Does this story change any if the driver was engaging in sex trafficking or drug running rather than smuggling illegal immigrants?

        1. Do the police let him go because it would also be a danger to pursue?

          Yes. This is actually policy in many places. The risk to uninvolved people, and the police and the people being pursued is too high.
          Running from the police is not going to work out well for anyone in the long run.

          This isn’t about blame. It’s irrelevant whether the blame for any collateral injuries or deaths belongs to the police or the people running. It’s about the police de-escalating a situation to avoid unnecessarily endangering the public.

          1. It’s about the police de-escalating a situation to avoid unnecessarily endangering the public.

            Haaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha!

            Police aren’t trained in de-escalation. They are trained in compliance. Obey. Or else.

            As far as the public goes, that’s everyone else. Anyone the police come into contact with, or injure in the course of forcing compliance, is not the public. They’re an annoyance. The public is invisible. Anyone who is visible is a peon who exists to serve the servants.

            1. I was trained in law enforcement de-escalation. Way WAY back.

              Police are trained now to move to force too quickly, IMO. I avoided a bunch of people getting hurt (police and suspects) by reasoning with people causing trouble. It did not always work.

              This does not necessary apply to violence in progress situations.

              1. Police are trained now to move to force too quickly, IMO.

                Police are trained to have zero tolerance for non-compliance and zero tolerance for anything that could put officer safety at risk. If they don’t use force at the slightest hint of disobedience, they could get fired. That’s the really sick thing about cops these days. About the only thing that can get them fired is restraint.

  11. When a sheriff says it’s “good police work” that led to a high-speed chase that ended in a catastrophic collision and five deaths, we should be very, very concerned.

    Did the Big Damn Heroes in Blue return safe and sound to their families? Yes? Well OK then, sounds like a job well done to me. /sarc

    1. Shit, the one time I don’t preview before posting I don’t close the damn html tags.

  12. “so he should know better at this point”

    Excuse me, but you’re talking about a Texas sheriff. It’s his job not to know better.

    1. Would you like a beer with your sneer?

  13. The outrage of the Utah case had little to do with the high speed chase aspect of it directly. It was that a nurse was arrested for defending the constitutional rights of her patient, who was a seriously injured innocent bystander, and that the police request seemed to indicate a shady attempt to avoid police liability for the patient’s injuries. The public usually foes not muster up such outrage for someone who runs from a fair cop.

    There may be a good argument for what Shackford wants, but using such an inapt comparsion hurts that argument.

    1. There is no such thing a s a “fair cop.” He or she is on a public payroll playing the parasite and making or producing nada.

      1. 1. That is not really what “fair cop” means. It means that you had actually done what law enforcement was trying to arrest you for.

        2. The idea that police are an entirely illegitimate role in society is utopianist nonsense.

        1. No, the utopian nonsense is the notion that cops are needed and actually do good and keep us safe.

          1. I disagree. A society that does not attempt to modify behaviors which have no victims would have far less issues with police and enforcement. It’s an open secret that police in todays world are revenue generators for the state, and this puts them at odd’s with their stated function to protect and serve.

            1. “It’s an open secret that police in todays world are revenue generators for the state, and this puts them at odd’s with their stated function to protect and serve.”

              Great point.

              I always ask why police can’t walk beats anymore. It puts police offices in contact with everyday people and limits the Us vs. Them mentality. I think NYPD does.

              Government gets more money running radar and arresting people for high fine offenses like DUI than from police presence deterring would-be criminals.

        2. The idea that police are an entirely illegitimate role in society is utopianist nonsense.

          Their legitimate role is to be agents of the court, and as such to get justice for crime victims.

          In practice they ignore crimes with victims and focus on crimes against the state.

          It’s not so much that their role is illegitimate. It’s more that they fail in their legitimate role.

    2. It was that a nurse was arrested for defending the constitutional rights of her patient, who was a seriously injured innocent bystander, and that the police request seemed to indicate a shady attempt to avoid police liability for the patient’s injuries failure to obey.

      The people in that chase failed to obey. Their lives were forfeit.

      1. Yes, police illegally seeking to coerce someone into collecting a blood sample they had no lawful authority to obtain is just like someone else fleeing a traffic stop at triple digit speed in an overloaded mini van.

        Amazing nobody else sees the parallels. You truly are a prodigy.

        1. Shackford is the George Will of Reason

        2. Because that is exactly what I said. Yeah. Sure.

          1. You called them both a ‘failure to obey.’

            How is that not the definition of equating the two?

            Or do you not understand what you wrote?

            1. Police see no difference between failing to obey an lawful order and failing to obey an unlawful order, because in their mind there is no difference. Failure to obey means they will escalate the situation, and they won’t stop until you are in handcuffs or dead. Or both.

              I am not equating unlawful orders to traffic stops. The police are. Because to them all they see is someone who fails to obey.

              1. Yes, you are a leftist, I already knew that. You concern yourself more with motives or intentions, whereas I am a libertarian and do not give a shit what someone thinks (free minds and all that) but only concern myself with peoples actions.

                Cops are indeed often guilty of doubleplus ungood badthink. So fucking what?

                The actions of the cop(s) in this story are not remotely equivalent to the actions of the cops who assaulted that nurse.

  14. Build the wall. There, fixed.

    1. Yes, then there will be no more high speed chases. ?

  15. People may recall that, in that famous case about the Utah nurse who was arrested for refusing to draw a comatose patient, that comatose man was in the hospital because he was struck by a car fleeing police. He later died. The case raised some questions as to whether the police involved were trying to get something on the victim that would protect themselves from criticism or legal liability for the chase.

    Hope you warmed up first, Shackford, because otherwise that sort of stretch can be injurious.

  16. We’d be outraged by the unnecessary pursuit if Americans had been killed.

    You mean like the six Willis children being killed by a undocumented driver who “got his license” in the license for bribes scandal that brought down the Governor?

    I mean, between license for bribes, TVDL, and motor voter, it almost seems feasible that you could bribe your way onto voter roles, multiple times even, in IL. Not that it didn’t happen before any of that though…

    1. Two wrongs make a right Republican.

  17. So cops shouldn’t chase criminals? What exactly is the point of this article?

    1. According to Shackford, ignoring laws make a country better.

      Under Rule of Man, Shackford thrives. Under Rule of Law, illegals are sent home because that is what Americans have instituted as law.

      1. law and legislation are not synonyms

  18. Yeah, it’s just better if the criminals know they can just drive away to evade capture.

  19. People to blame for high speed chases:

    [X] Criminals

    [ ] Police

    1. Blame isn’t the issue here. It’s public safety. The innocent bystander who gets paralyzed when some bad guy or cop engaged in a chase crashes into him doesn’t give a crap whose fault it is.

      1. Agreed.

        And choosing to do 100 mph in an overloaded car – where surely there were not enough passenger restraints to go around – is tremendously unsafe.

        Not that anyone forced him to do it.

  20. Who exactly is outraged? The criminal driving got those people killed. Four of those people were also criminals. That’s five people we don’t have to warehouse. That’s a taxpayer win.

    1. Agreed

  21. How boring, another backdoor open border story. Trump wasn’t even mentioned. Come on Shackford, if you want to continue to be published here at CNN you need to work Trump into the article.

  22. The police are to blame for criminals running away from them? Is that the argument being made here? Should the police all be undercover and in unmarked cars?

  23. I’m against chasing a criminal in a vehicle without a known reason, such as the carrying of a weapon of mass destruction. I don’t consider carrying mass immigrants a reason. Too many have been killed (cops, perps, and innocent bystanders).

  24. No, the crash was caused by an inexperienced driver attempting to avoid/evade arrest for an illegal act.
    The cops had probable cause.

  25. come on — get over it – there were 17 people in that SUV and you blame the police?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.