Another example of people saying stupid things. This may not end well for the Sheriff.


A Tennessee widow is suing a county sheriff who was caught on a body camera ordering police to shoot her late husband during a vehicle chase because ramming him would ‘tear up my cars.”

“They said, ‘we’re ramming him,’” White County Sheriff Oddie Shoupe said, according to the tape. “I said, ‘Don’t ram him, shoot him. F--- that s---. Ain’t gonna tear up my cars.’”

Shoupe made the disturbing comments before he ordered the shooting of Michael Dial, according to video obtained by News Channel 5.

Dial, who had a suspended license but was unarmed, led Smithville police on a low-speed chase after officers tried to pull him over last April. Dial gave chase in his 1976 truck, which was hauling a trailer, at speeds that never exceeded 50 miles per hour.

After Dial crossed county line, White County deputies took over the chase. Shoupe, who was not involved in the chase, gave the radio dispatcher orders to “take him out.”

"Per 59 (the sheriff), use deadly force, if necessary. Take the subject out by any means necessary,” News Channel 5 reported he said.

Deputy Adam West, who was following Dial in his own pickup truck, and Officer Charlie Simms opened fire, killing Dial.

When Shoupe arrived on the scene, he was heard boasting about what happened.

“I love this s---,” he said, according to the tape. “God, I tell you what, I thrive on it.”

Then he’s heard laughing.

“If they don’t think I’ll give the damn order to kill that motherf----- they’re full of s---,” he said, according to the tape. “Take him out. I’m here on the damn wrong end of the county.”

It did not appear Shoupe was aware that he was being recorded. But he was defiant in an interview with SpartaLive.

“I hate that this happened," he said. "But we are not going to tolerate people coming into this county and running over our citizens and our officers, and we will deal with them severely.”

The District Attorney Office ruled the “shooting was justified” but admitted it did not know about Shoupe’s comments during its investigation.

Robyn Dial, the man’s widow, filed a federal lawsuit “alleging the use of excessive force against her late husband.”

“It was not only inappropriate but also unconscionable for Defendant Shoupe to give the order to use deadly force,” the filing said.

The widow’s attorney, David Weissman, told The Guardian the recording left him in disbelief.

“The comments as seen on the video are extremely disturbing,” Weissman said. “I’m not sure how anybody can thrive on the taking of a life, let alone somebody in law enforcement.”

Robyn Dial said her husband would still be allowed if not for Shoupe’s order, which she said was excessive and unnecessary.

"They could have let him go 10 more miles down the road, he probably would have run out of gas,” she told News Channel 5. “I just hope he knows I loved him.”


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018...red-love-this-s.html

He's toast.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
He's toast.

Yup. With a large spread of marmalade.

(Don't ask me what that means.)

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
He's toast.

Shoupe, there it is.

Did I miss some details why it was justified? I don't like bad guys but why chase when you know who the guy is and all you want him for is driving with a suspended license? It's not like he's going to flee the country to hide. Pick him up when he goes home.

Jail for that dumbass, which is probably good for the citizens in his jurisdiction.

What a fuckstick.

Adrenaline loosens tongues.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
He's toast.

Yup. With a large spread of marmalade.

(Don't ask me what that means.)

It is very difficult to remove sheriffs in Tennessee. They are elected officials and unless he is convicted of something or decides to quit, he will almost certainly finish his term.

"Fuck that shit" would make for a nice reelection theme, don't you think?

Yea, I think him and the two officers that opened fire are toast. If a grand jury doesn't agree that their Graham Factors justified their use of deadly force then they are all fucked.

quote:

Originally posted by Krazeehorse:
Did I miss some details why it was justified? I don't like bad guys but why chase when you know who the guy is and all you want him for is driving with a suspended license? It's not like he's going to flee the country to hide. Pick him up when he goes home.

I’m wondering the same thing. I’m sure there’s more to this story but simply fleeing from police does not justify deadly force. If dude is driving crazy (excessive speeds, weaving around traffic, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc) then it could be justified.

I also agree about the chase. Chasing someone for a minor violation who is known and warrant could be sought at a later date is a huge no no in my department. Maybe the low speeds is why they continued the chase. I also hope the officers that fired did so because they had a legitimate reason to and not just because the sheriff told them to. He’s an idiot and not someone I want to work for.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Adrenaline loosens tongues.

He should have trained more.

What a dick.

It goes without saying I am pro LEO and I enjoy debating the details about law enforcement matters with SF members who are not cops.
That said, this may be the stupidest things I have heard a cop say, maybe ever. And he is the Sheriff! If his deputies actually used deadly force based on a radio transmission from him during a low speed chase from another county, maybe jail for them is called for too.
This even beats out the genius who pinched the nurse in SLC.
Maybe more details will shed some light on this incident.

"The District Attorney Office ruled the “shooting was justified” . . . ."

Must be more to the story.

The way I look at is, if you are giving the order to ram a car doing 50, you have already been told to use deadly force. Car or gun no difference.

But laughing and bragging about that, you are a dumb f $%^.

Well, it's not too late to reopen the investigation and at least take it to a grand jury to make the decision.

All officers involved might have sewered themselves if it's found they falsified their reports to show justification.

This whole deal stinks and should be looked at by an impartial investigator.

ETA: @PeteF

Nobody is told to use deadly force. That is the officer's decision if he feels the circumstances warrant it, but that decision will be questioned so they had better be sure.

If the sheriff is found guilty in the federal lawsuit he might be removed from office, otherwise I doubt anything will happen to him.

The sheriff in the county next to the one where I live was a prior district court judge who was impeached because he was making deals with the families of drug dealers to give them lighter sentences. He was elected and then a short time later was charged with raping a 17 year old girl on a hunting trip. Right before the trial was set to begin, the charges were withdrawn. Over the next few weeks the girl was seen driving a new Mustang and her father was in a brand new truck (they were dirt poor and couldn't afford anything like that) - draw your own conclusions - he is still in office.

Tennessee requires that an ouster lawsuit be brought against an elected official and the standard to remove is pretty high:

https://eli.ctas.tennessee.edu...emoval-office-ouster

Article 7, Section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution provides that county officers shall be removed from office for malfeasance or neglect of duty. “The terms ‘malfeasance’ and ‘neglect of duty’ are comprehensive terms and include any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty.” State ex rel. Complainant v. Ward, 43 S.W.2d 217, 219 (Tenn. 1931).

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 8‑47‑101, county officials may be ousted from office for:

Knowing or wilful misconduct in office;
Knowing or wilful neglect of duties required by law;
Voluntary intoxication in a public place;
Engaging in illegal gambling; or
Committing any act violating any penal statute involving moral turpitude.
Participating in the Tennessee lottery is not considered gambling. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑127.

“Proceedings under the Ouster Act should never be brought unless there is a clear case of official dereliction. This is a very drastic statute and should not be invoked except in plain cases that can be certainly proved.” State ex rel. Wilson v. Bush, 208 S.W. 607, 609 (Tenn. 1919). See, e.g., McDonald v. Brooks, 387 S.W.2d 803, 806 (Tenn. 1965) (ouster suits should be brought only where the evidence of official dereliction is clear and convincing). As has been noted by the Tennessee Supreme Court:

The Ouster statute is a salutary one, but those administering it should guard against its overencroachment. Shreds of human imperfections gathered together to mold charges of official dereliction should be carefully scanned before a reputable officer is removed from office. These derelictions should amount to knowing misconduct or failure on the part of the officer if his office is to be forfeited; mere mistakes in judgment will not suffice.

Vandergriff v. State ex rel. Davis, 206 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Tenn. 1937) (emphasis added).

“Misconduct that would sustain an indictment under the common law would support a proceeding under the Ouster Law.” State ex rel. Carney v. Crosby, 255 S.W.3d 593, 597 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2008). Nevertheless, a plaintiff in an ouster suit shoulders a heightened burden of proof. Id. TheTennessee Court of Appeals has noted:

As used in reference to the ouster statute, the terms “knowingly” and “willfully” have been defined as encompassing “a mental attitude of indifference to consequences or failure to take advantage of means of knowledge of the rights, duties or powers of a public office holder.” Tennessee ex rel. Leech v. Wright, 622 S.W.2d 807, 817 (Tenn.1981) (citing Jordan v. State, 217 Tenn. 307, 397 S.W.2d 383, 398 (1965)). The Jordan court also noted that the terms “knowingly” and “willfully” as used in ouster proceedings are “not confined to a studied or deliberate intent to go beyond the bounds of the law.” Jordan, 397 S.W.2d at 399. However, it requires more than “simple negligence” to constitute willful or knowing misconduct. Id. (holding “simple negligence in discharging the duties of an officer does not constitute or amount to an officer acting knowingly or willfully”).

Id. at 598.

Ouster is purely a civil proceeding and the rights granted to defendants in criminal cases are not applicable under the ouster statutes. State ex rel. Leech v. Wright, 622 S.W.2d 807 (Tenn. 1981). Ouster proceedings may be instituted by the attorney general, district attorney general, or county attorney, either on their own initiative or after a complaint has been made. T.C.A. § 8-47-102. County attorneys, within their respective jurisdictions, are required to investigate any complaint made in writing alleging that a county officer is guilty of any of the acts, omissions, or offenses set out in T.C.A. § 8-47-101, and upon determination of reasonable cause, to institute a proceeding in the appropriate court to oust such official. T.C.A. § 8-47-103. See Op. Tenn. Atty. Gen. 07-169 (December 21, 2007); Op. Tenn. Atty. Gen. 00-126 (August 7, 2000). Note that the county commission is not authorized by statute to bring ouster proceedings against county officials. “Nor, is the county executive authorized under the ouster statutes to bring such a suit.” Duncan v. Cherokee Ins. Co., 1987 WL 11329 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1987).

County attorneys have the power and are directed, whenever a complaint has been made, and the names of the witnesses have been furnished to them, or whenever they deem necessary, to issue subpoenas for witnesses and other persons they believe have knowledge of the complaint, to appear before them at a time and place designated in the subpoena and testify concerning the subject matter set out in the complaint. T.C.A. § 8-47-104. Each witness must be sworn and the testimony of each witness must be reduced to writing and signed by the witness. County attorneys may administer the necessary oaths and affirmations to the witnesses. T.C.A. § 8-47-105. Disobedience of a subpoena, or refusal to answer proper questions propounded by the county attorney at the inquiry, is a Class C misdemeanor. T.C.A. § 8-47-106.

The privilege against self incrimination does not apply in ouster proceedings. No person will be excused from testifying under the ouster statutes on the ground that the person's testimony may incriminate him or her. However, no person may be prosecuted or punished on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which the person was compelled to testify, and the testimony cannot be used against the person in prosecutions for any crime or misdemeanor under the laws of this state. T.C.A. § 8-47-107.

Citizens may also file ouster proceedings. Ten citizens and freeholders are required to institute the proceedings and they must post security for the costs of the lawsuit. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑110. State ex rel. Wolfenbarger v. Moore, 2010 WL 520995 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2010). It is the duty of the county attorney, upon request of relator citizens and freeholders, to aid and assist in the prosecution of the proceedings against county officers. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑111.

When an ouster petition or complaint is filed the court may suspend the accused officer from performing any of the duties of their office, pending a final hearing and determination of the matter. The vacancy should be filled as the law provides for the filling of vacancies in that office. The person filling the vacancy carries on the duties of the office until the hearing is concluded or until a successor is elected. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑116. The officer temporarily filling the office receives the same salary and fees as paid to the suspended officer. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑121.

At least five days before an official is suspended, the official must receive a notice setting forth the time and place of the hearing on the suspension application. The officer has the right to appear and make any defense that the officer may have, and shall be entitled to a full hearing upon the application for the order of suspension. No order of suspension shall be made, except upon finding of good cause. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑117.

Ouster proceedings have precedence over civil and criminal actions, and must be tried at the first term after the filing of the complaint or petition, provided that the answer of the accused officer has been on file at least ten days before the day of trial. The accused officer is entitled to demand and have a trial by jury as to any issue of fact. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑119. Likewise, plaintiffs in an ouster suit are entitled to a trial by jury as to any issue of material fact. State ex rel. Wolfenbarger v. Moore, 2010 WL 520995 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2010). If the officer is found guilty, the officer shall be ousted from office and must pay the full costs adjudged in the case. T.C.A. §§ 8‑47‑120 and 8‑47‑122.

If, after the final hearing the officer is not removed from office, the officer shall, if the officer has been suspended, be immediately restored to office and be allowed the officer's full costs and the salary and fees of the officer's office during the time of the officer's suspension. After the final hearing, any officer not removed from office may be reimbursed reasonable attorney fees. However, if either party appeals no such reimbursement shall be made until a final judgment is rendered. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑121. See State ex rel. Carney v. Crosby, 255 S.W.3d 593, 602 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2008) (denying attorney fees). See also Marshall v. Sevier County, 639 S.W.2d 440 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1982).

Either party to an ouster proceeding may appeal, but the appeal does not operate to suspend or to vacate the trial court's judgment or decree, which remains in full force until vacated, revised or modified. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑123. An ouster suit has priority on appeal and will be heard at the first term after such appeal is perfected and filed. T.C.A. § 8‑47‑125.