A Tennessee widow is suing White County Sheriff Oddie Shoupe after the disclosure of a body camera recording in which Shoupe ordered the shooting of her husband so not to “tear up” the cars of his deputies. Michael Dial was unarmed and moving at only around 50 miles an hour in his truck (which was pulling a trailer). Shoupe’s orders and comments on the tape are highly disturbing.
Dial was driving on a suspended license and unarmed last April when he took officers on the 50 mile an hour chase in his 1976 truck.
Shoupe’s deputies were preparing to ram Dial to end the chase when Shoupe can be heard telling them to kill the driver instead: “They said, ‘we’re ramming him.’ I said, ‘Don’t ram him, shoot him. F— that s—. Ain’t gonna tear up my cars.’” Shoupe told the radio dispatcher to tell the officers to “take him out.” The operator immediately said “Per 59 (the sheriff), use deadly force, if necessary. Take the subject out by any means necessary.” Deputy Adam West and Officer Charlie Simms then opened fire, killing Dial.
When Shoupe arrived on the scene, he was heard on a recording celebrating the shooting: “I love this s—. God, I tell you what, I thrive on it.” He is also heard laughing and boasting: “If they don’t think I’ll give the damn order to kill that motherf—– they’re full of s—, Take him out. I’m here on the damn wrong end of the county.”
Shoupe remains unapologetic for his unprofessional language and questionable order. He later told the media that, while he hated that it had to happen, “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.” That does not answer why he would prefer to shoot a driver than force him off the road at the cost of dents to his vehicles. While Dial was clearly continuing the chase after earlier attempts, it would not have been difficult to force him off the road while towing a heavy trailer.
The District Attorney cleared the shoot as justified but now Robyn Dial has filed a federal wrongful death action based on the use of excessive force. It is a valid case though by no means an easy one. Continuing the chase in the truck can be viewed as putting officers and citizens at sufficient risk to justify lethal force. It will depend if this is viewed as within the zone of discretion for the sheriff.
What is clear is that Shoupe should not be sheriff in this or any county. It was the wrong call. His deputies were right to say that they going to ram the truck. Had Shoupe not intervened (without being on the scene), Dial would likely be alive. Moreover, the sheriff’s unprofessional and callous statements after the shooting should be enough to raise serious questions over his fitness. The boasting and joy displayed at the scene is deeply disturbing.
Watt do you think?
153 thoughts on ““I Love This Sh*t”: Tennessee Sheriff Boasts On Tape After Ordering Deputies To Shoot Driver In Car Chase”
We have to know what brought his incident on before we can make a rational conclusion ! Was he going fast ?NO ! that tells us he was not trying to escape,he was afraid of the police (people that harassed him before) !Was his vehicle used to rob a bank or comment a crime ?NO ! Look at his vehicle and the trailer ,he was a hard working lower class member of society,had just cleaned up an area and was headed for the dump or salvage yard l Being white ,nothing will be said and no rights group will speak for him.Police sit in their cars and wait to write tickets ,work to them is pulling the trigger and killing an underarm person ! Protect and serve does not fit when unarmed people die ! This sheriff is so egotistical and full of himself he thinks he is above the law and seems like he owns it in his country ! He has been acquitted by the DA ! POINT IS WE HAVE A PROBLEM FROM COAST TO COAST WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE ATTITUDE THEY CAN KILL ANYBODY ! THIS DID NOT HAVE TO END THIS WAY ! ONCE YOU LOSE RESPECT FOR ALL LIFE ,NO ONE WILL BE SAFE !
Sounds like this sheriff does what he wants . Another article about him and search warrants ..
How to stop a moving car? I have already answered this question below. But for those “liberty-lovers” that insist that the answer is to shoot the driver in the head so they can “feel good” about themselves, what do those same “liberty-lovers” think should be done WHEN THERE IS NO DRIVER?
I’ve uncovered this video of what an off-duty police officer did to stop the vehicle, dating back to the 1980s. The off-duty police officers stops the driverless vehicle without killing or injuring anyone, and does so safely and efficiently. Needless to say, of course, he applies the “Ralph” solution.
PS: It matters not that the car is driving in a circle pattern. The off-duty police officer is on foot, so that merely equalizes the situation. But the solution is the same as mine, and it’s the correct one in each case.
FWIW, a recent chase (by helicopter), in Canada:
“Durham police release footage of dramatic 154-km helicopter chase”
“Police say it’s believed to be the second-longest helicopter chase in Canadian history, and longest ever in Ontario.”
Feb. 7th, 2018
A very different situation, but there were no casualties.
Disturbing, and I am glad that this is on tape.
This is why they have spike strips or any number of non lethal means to stop a vehicle. Of course, you cannot let a chase continue where innocent civilians can be injured. However, the text of the audiotape does not sound like that had any part in the decision.
What it all comes down to is support for one direction or support for another. The direction most countries are taking is to limit violence when confronting those that step outside the line, to capture, reeducate, and put the problem person, hopefully adjusted, back into society. This is seen in the approach to drug use and the per capita population rate in the prisons of the more evolved countries. Per capita, the US surpasses almost all other nations regarding incarceration rate, the presence of guns in regular society, gun violence, death due to gun negligence, etc. It is not a perfect approach but results in a vastly higher success rate than that of the US. The highest profile argument against it is founded in discounting its success entirely because of the inevitable cases that fail. This is the mindless mind at work.
In the US, for some time, the trend has been to ‘shoot first’. This has been illustrated with the proliferation of guns and the many, many, many slaughters. The response to drug use has been to incarcerate rather than treat. The result is a world record regarding per capita incarceration. The ‘shoot first’ and/or ‘lock em up’ approach is more expensive, creates more crime, and has been shown statistically to not work as well as the systems that attempt to design the response to the crime.
It comes down to attitude. To lock someone up, or shoot them dead, are responses to urges for vengeance, expressions of individual control, and a hearkening back to the good old days of the simplistic life with its simplistic solutions. While America continues to try to regain its past, with all its seemingly appropriate responses to today’s problems, today becomes tomorrow and the solutions continue to be less and less effective vis a vis the problems.
There are situations where force is necessary, however, the US is unique in supporting force as a first response, more significantly, deadly force. The ‘right’ to shoot and kill someone extends from a police officer making a judgement call and automatically being given support to citizens in many states having the law on their side if they kill other citizens because they ‘felt’ threatened.
What is at issue here is the direction.
There are significant illustrations of the change in direction with the latest administration. The police have been applauded, pardoned, and encouraged, to not be too nice. Under the Obama administration deportations of illegal immigrants reached record numbers, numbers that have yet to be surpassed even under this champion of deportation President. However, those targeted for deportation were the truly undesirables. Under this administration’s mindless braggadocio, illegal immigrants who are, despite having transgressed the law, valuable potential citizens, who have the equity and ambition sorely needed by the US, are being threatened and deported. What is most telling is that this administration has screamed the loudest and is doing the most damage to America. The hypocrisy of accusing the previous administration of bankrupting America and then borrowing more itself, with no point other than to build the world’s greatest military, greater than all others combined, even bigger can only be supported by the mindless. In the end all you get is a parade and more braggadocio.
So, applaud the killers, lump all those who would see this country evolve socially into a group represented by the furthest fringe elements, and bury your heads further up where the sun has yet to shine.
Isaac, you’re still making sense. Frankly, I don’t think you ever didn’t make sense.
Isaac – it is my understanding that forced drug rehab doesn’t work.
Los Angeles county pays $100 million annually on the homeless, just within its county, and addictions is a large component of that population. The county has very little to show for its efforts.
I am at a complete loss as to how to fight drug addiction, other than an effective PA campaign to stop people from trying drugs in the first place.
This is exactly what is wrong with our system. You have an understanding that forced drug rehab doesn’t work. Yet statistics illustrate clearly that rehab of some sort: forced, voluntary, combination, option over doing time, etc does work. The answer to drug problems is full and real disclosure-not combining pot with meth and heroin, education from an early age with full and real disclosure, treatment for users and addicts before incarceration, separation between the reality of addiction and that of criminality-even though the two are often intertwined, etc. Portugal, Scandinavia, and a host of European countries are having great success by ‘treating’ the issue rather than mindlessly responding with jail time or worse. The statistics prove this out. The direction we should be going should be driven by facts, not perverse ideology and a need for retribution.
France used to be extremely rigid regarding drugs. I lived there for many years in the late 70s and early 80s. Watching TV, when a story aired regarding hashish there would be a huge photo of someone’s arm receiving a syringe. The attitude at the time was more realistic in the US at the time. While other countries progressed the US regressed. Now we are seeing a polarization between the realists regarding pot and those that lump in all in together and demand jail time. With the present administration so many steps forward are being reversed. It is one thing to criticize an administration for progressing too fast, too far, and within sometimes accompanying nonsense; however, it is shameful to see this administration moving backward in so many areas, primarily to pander to the oligarchs that run this country.
Situations such as the story for this blog will always arise. The responses seem to be overwhelmingly ‘attaboy’ instead of ‘isn’t there a better way’. These responses are our official White House doctrine. Sad, shameful, deplorable.
You are wasting breath criticising the laws against certain mind-altering substances on the basis of ineffectiveness in achieving their stated purpose.
The drug laws provide the only effective means of addressing the ethnic hygiene problem caused by that most egregious excess of political correctness, the abolition of slavery.
If one criminalizes normal human behaviour such as sex, drugs and rock and roll the number of breaches of the law is so high that only a fraction can be detected and prosecuted. All laws provide discretion as to where to concentrate enforcement and in the case of the drug laws this discretion is exercised to the extreme via army of occupation policing of the places where the black underclass reside.
Would you share the links to the statistics with me?
“Yet statistics illustrate clearly that rehab of some sort: forced, voluntary, combination, option over doing time, etc does work.”
This is not what I have read when I looked into it. In fact, quitting heroin takes, on average, 27 attempts where the user wants to get clean. That is prohibitively expensive, either for health insurance companies, policy holders, or even local governments.
The most generous quote I could find is this:
“Without rehab, it is extremely doubtful anyone who is addicted to drugs or alcohol is ever going to overcome the disease. Forced rehab opens the door to a cure. So, the possibility exists. Honestly, though, the likelihood of overcoming an addiction when forced into rehab is very slim. Unless the individual recognizes they have a problem and are seriously committed to kicking the addiction, overcoming the addiction is going to be very difficult. That said, forcing someone into rehab does offer a slim chance of success while not going into rehab at all presents zero chance. It is possible that the patient may get into rehab and realize that getting clean is what they want.”
So, forced rehab is less than zero. However, would there be enough success to justify the expense? Rehab can cost tens of thousands of dollars each time. One would at least want some buy in from the addict.
I found this article here which outlined an interesting problem in tracing statistics:
“According to TIME magazine, there is no standard definition of “rehab,” so there is no standard metric of success for rehabilitation centers. Some facilities simply measure how many of their patients complete their programs; others consider sobriety in the follow-up months and years after “graduation” as the threshold for success.
Some facilities, for example, tout success rates in the 90th percentile, but this can be misleading; there are often very flexible criteria for what defines that kind of success. How such facilities deal with the ever-present topic of relapse, and further rounds of treatment, is left unsaid or not comprehensively addressed.”
I would be happy to be wrong, however, and am interested in the data you used to form your own point of view. I am generally a civil libertarian, and feel the government has no right to interfere with what you put into your mouth (i.e. soda tax). Highly addictive, toxic substances like meth and heroine, however, come at too great a cost.
I don’t think people should be thrown away because they did something self-destructive and got addicted to drugs. In addition, there are addicts who began with debilitating injuries and got innocently hooked. But I don’t know how to help them.
While I don’t like the state of the law which likely renders this a “legal” killing, recent Supreme Court law does in fact make it so. See Mullenix v. Luna, –––U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 305, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015); Plumhoff v. Rickard, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014). I don’t think the negligible distinction here that the chase wasn’t “high speed” is sufficient to distinguish it from the controlling precedential authority.
The man loves his job. It doesn’t get any better than that!
That is more than can be said of Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand.
Well, er, ex-Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand.
Grappler Police Bumper vehicle arrest system
“Police Bumper’s Grappler is a system that consists of a net attached to posts that mount on the front of police cars. With the push of a button, the posts extend when the tool is in use. The Grappler works by having the net grab onto a rear wheel of the suspect’s car. Once the wheel is snagged, the netting wraps around the car’s axle, completely immobilizing the vehicle. A long tether ensures that even vehicles with front wheel drive can be brought to a controlled stop. The linear nature of the resistance allows the Grappler to be safe for use even in heavy traffic.”
Anonymous – I love it. Very innovative. I would want to add that the tether should probably detach from the police car to prevent it being dragged off the road if the driver of the racing car loses control and flips.
Every mic is live and hot. Our world is all wired up. Both visually and audio wise. When will people learn.
“Tennessee Sheriff’s Searches Questioned”
Jun 30, 2016
“A lawsuit has been filed against White County, Sheriff Odie Shoupe and four deputies for allegedly violating the complainant’s civil rights. The federal lawsuit was filed on May 17 by attorneys working for Jessica Newnum of Sparta. Newnum says that Shoupe and the deputies, who are not identified, knocked once then entered her unlocked home while she was in a bedroom asleep, with guns drawn. Newnum says that Sheriff Shoupe announced that he was looking for David Pecor, whom she said did not know. The lawsuit states that Newnum was held at gunpoint while the deputies, with the aid of a K-9 Officer, searched the home, allegedly without a search warrant. The lawsuit names several claims for relief and asks for punitive damages, medical expenses, and other remuneration.”
We really need to get rid of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. They really get in the way of our Police State . . . errrr, I mean, our Law Enforcement from carrying out their functions.
Clearly every patrol car needs to have a mounted bazooka.
Why stop with a mounted bazooka? How about multiple rocket launchers and dual-machine guns? That should take care of any problem drivers and even put a stop to those annoying drivers who might cut into a police officer’s lane.
First response: Oh, the horrible of the day…watched video, second response: the guy was an idiot. I’d almost say he invited the situation and it’s conclusion.
“A toxicology report found methamphetamine, amphetamine and cannabis in Dial’s system when he died, according to the newspaper.” -Miami Herald
“But Dial, 33, refused to stop his vehicle on April 13 — so officers tried to chase him down around 4:30 p.m. During the 17-mile chase, Dial rammed his pickup into several law enforcement vehicles, drove into oncoming traffic and ran red lights, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.
“Then the tires on Dial’s trailer flattened, police said, tossing some of the items Dial was hauling off the trailer and into the median of the highway.
“A toxicology report found methamphetamine, amphetamine and cannabis in Dial’s system when he died, according to the newspaper.”
OH NOES!!! I wish you hadn’t posted that! Dial was a DRUGGIE??? You know what this means, don’t you? Next year, all the white NFL players are going to be kneeling during the National Anthem in solidarity with the dead druggie.
If we can “know” the sherrif’s intent, we can know the FBI’s intent.
Speaking of “intent” gleaned from recorded messages, it looks like the higher echelons of the FBI “intended” to “impeach” President Trump, as an act of “loyal opposition” and democrat political strategy, as planned before his election – in “Andy’s office”.
“Mr. Strzok wrote, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”
Conspiratorial and false impeachment was the FBI’s “insurance policy” before the election.
You have perfected the Kellyanne Pivot, as a true Fox disciple.
NUT CHA CHA,
I believe what you are referring to are “facts” as “evidence”…there are more to come…and all roads lead to the “Magic Kenyan”, Obama. Wouldn’t you love to read his texts right now…and Hillary’s and Comey’s and Rice’s and Strzok’s and Page’s and Power’s and Huma’s and Farkas’s and Mueller’s and Rosenstein’s and Jarrett’s and Holder’s and McCabe’s and Ohr’s and Wray’s and Lerner’s and, well, the whole “Obama Gang”?
No need to worry about the sheriff, I’m sure he has people talking to him right now about running for higher office.
Disgusting. There are these types of people who go into law enforcement so they can legally be disgusting subhumans.
If not ramming him, why not just shoot out his tires?
Because, that mostly only works in movies. You would have to be right up beside the vehicle to hit the tire, and then if the vehicle goes out of control, guess where you are? Right up beside the vehicle. The physics of it is, the vehicle is going to veer in the direction of the blown tire, which is YOU! Which, is why the police use spike strips which are designed to pop the tires on both sides at the same time.
Plus, the truck was moving at 50 MPH, and had the extra mass of a trailer. Trailers can jack knife on you, and pickups can flip. Have you ever driven a pickup truck with a boat or trailer behind it??? It is kind of bouncy to start with. Plus, tire blowouts can be fatal, too, Remember all those lawsuits about cheap tires that blew out and killed people.
Which is easier to shoot? The tires or the man?
I’ve hitched boats. I think blowing out the tires on one side would seriously impair my ability to maneuver.
I think it would be easier to hit the man.
One, the man is not spinning at about 700 RPM;
Two, the man is a bigger target;
Three, the man doesn’t have a metal rim or hubcap in the center of him, which can cause ricochets;
Four, the “physics” of shooting a man does not have the automatic, law-of-nature result that shooting out a tire does. In other words, a shot man is not going to automatically veer in the direction of the shot out tire. There is the possibility the man will simply be wounded and decide to end the chase.
“One, the man is not spinning at about 700 RPM;”
Squeeky, one is not hitting a certain spot on the tire so the RPM means nothing. In my younger days, I could probably have been left off on the grassy medium a minute or so earlier and with a rifle shot out at least one tire, perhaps more.”
“Two, the man is a bigger target;”
Is the man a bigger and better target? The police cars were low so they were shooting upwards which might have been a more difficult shot. Additionally, they could shoot from slightly behind both better protecting them and giving them more of a chance to focus.
“Three, the man doesn’t have a metal rim or hubcap in the center of him, which can cause ricochets;”
The Truck itself could cause a ricochet and stray bullets could end up hitting someone lateral to the truck while shooting from behind would eliminate the problem.
“automatically veer in the direction of the shot out tire.”
We don’t know what direction the truck will veer in when the man is hit. However, if we hit the tires form the rear he likely wouldn’t veer but would have a lot more drag.
Our intention should be to calm the driver and slow him down. I am not sure what precipitated the chase. He was driving with a suspended license. Prior to the sirens, I wonder the nature of his driving.
He was on meth.
“when officers tried to pull him over for driving with a suspended license, according to authorities.”
In other words, they didn’t pick him up for reckless driving or any violent offense. Loads of people are driving on all sorts of drugs. They need to be put in jail not shot dead. Early on in the chase since it was for driving without a license should they have even pursued him closely at 50 miles per hour when he bolted? That created a tremendous potential for injury to others.
Here’s the rest of the story:
OK, let’s assume he was shoplifting along with his suspended license. Were they after him because of a suspended license or shoplifting? If it was because of a suspended license then the plate on the vehicle must have been his. But, they say, ” his license plate did not match the vehicle he was driving.” Was that discovered after the fact or during the chase? The plate would have been observed on the trailer so perhaps more than one car pulled that trailer and the license wasn’t changed. After the fact they found he had drugs in his system.
I am not sure which crime was the precipitating one that led to the chase. Neither indicates a violent person or a person with a weapon. Nor do I know what his driving behavior was before the police went after him. If he bolted after the fact then that could mean drugs or some surge of adrenaline in a cowboy mind. The question is what would happen if the chase occurred from afar and he was tracked by an unmarked car or helicopter if one was available with police all around and unseen? Did the chase create a greater risk? It’s hard to disappear in an old truck pulling a trailer.
I am not afraid to let the police do their jobs and shoot and kill violent people. I am not afraid of individuals protecting their homes and property. We all need to protect ourselves and society. However, did we have a bunch of cowboys in this chase? The commanding officer, based on his comments seems to have been a bit of a cowboy and he may have imparted that attitude among his officers. In my opinion that is not the best law enforcement.
Squeeky – well that was important information to have!
My concern is that the audiotape seems to indicate that the Sheriff told their officers not to pit the driver but shoot him instead, because he didn’t want his cars damaged, not because of a legitimate decision process. According to the information above, there are indeed circumstances where the driver would need to be taken out. For instance, if he was headed towards a school and was getting out of control, civilian safety would override his own.
There may have been good reasons to shoot the driver, but that might have been pure coincidence, when considering the sheriff’s comments.
This incident needs to be investigated, and the procedures reviewed.
As for those questioning the chase in the first place, I vehemently disagree with requiring police not to pursue fleeing suspects. If the police were not allowed to engage in a chase, then who would stop to be arrested, ever? All they would have to do is drive away. I do agree with them dropping back and using drones or helicopters to assist, but the fault of any accidents lies with the suspect who flees from police.
I had a very close call when a police chase crossed my path. I was driving my friend home years ago, on a 4 lane road divided by a wide median. It was night, and I was in the left lane. I just had time to say, “What is that? Is there something in the road”, before I realized that there was a car driving the wrong way. I barely had time to swerve into the next lane before the car whooshed past us. We estimated it was driving over 100 mph, with its lights off, going in the wrong direction on a street with no street lights. It made no effort to get out of my lane. If it had, then we both would have swerved into the next lane and hit head on. Since it was going over 100 mph with its lights off, by the time it came into my field of view on the dark road, it was already on top of us. A police car was following on the other side of the median, traveling in the correct direction. My near miss was not the police officer’s fault; it was the fault of that maniac who almost killed all of us, and I hope he got arrested and thrown in jail.
People who flee from police put everyone in danger, and I agree with sentencing enhancements.
Plus, Dial apparently put 3 officers in the hospital!
The injuries to the police officers occurred because of the chase. Was such a chase necessary? We have heard a lot of questions involving ricocheting bullets and other dangers. The question is would a better tactic led to a better and safer result?
I am not losing any sleep over Dial being dead. Nor, do I think it useful to dissect every possible angle in this. The guy fled from police. He was on meth. He ran thru red lights. He collided with cop cars. Nuff said IMHO. Plus, the cops who talked to him in the parking lot could probably tell he was on something.
As a matter of Cosmic Law, should cops pursue felons? As a matter of Cosmic Law, should cops shoot felons? I’m cool with it. The way I see it, it is a mathematical relationship where the more somebody runs from you, the more potentially dangerous they are, and the more guilty they are of something.
” Nor, do I think it useful to dissect every possible angle in this.”
Squeeky, I agree unless there is a better way of doing things without 3 policemen being injured, the risk of civilian casualties, etc.
“He ran thru red lights”
But, did he run through red lights before he was chased? That is the question. The probability of apprehending him was exceptionally high even if they lost him. Other police departments might have done things differently and might have a lower death and injury rate to police and bystanders. Our first obligation is the safety of the police and the public and in this case, there could have been an unnecessary death of a police officer. That is one of the reasons for carefully studying this case and the nature of the officer in charge.
IMO unless the perp was reckless before knowing the police were after him there is a good chance that there is a better method of managing the situation.
Allan – police officers run into each other in high-speed chases. They no longer do them in the Valley of the Sun because of the injuries involved to themselves and innocent civilians. All the cities are inter-connected so they just radio ahead and set up the next city.
Depending on police availability highways can be blocked off and a safer path can be created for the eventual capture. People on meth can overreact. A cool mind and head can save lives and I am talking about the lives of police officers and civilians.
If he is heading up a highway you likely know where he is going when the exits are blocked. Criminals and meth heads aren’t the smartest crayons in the box.
Allan – I think you are mixing metaphors. Crayons are not smart, but they might be sharp. 😉
Or, maybe there could be a policy that starting a police chase for a low-level violation like this isn’t worth the risk to the public, much less the suspect.
He was on meth, running thru red lights, ramming cars, and risking people’s lives? WTF is “low level” about that???
You think we should just let drunk drivers drive drunk if they decide to flee???
Unfortunately it is very difficult to shoot tires while driving a pursuing police car. It can be done, but it is dangerous and not as easy as one might expect. In fact, many departments have policies forbidding the practice. The chances for an accidental shooting are higher, especially considering that pistol bullets will ricochet with a flat trajectory when striking the street and this could go under the car and into oncoming traffic. With all the movement churning few shots will hit on target when fired by a driver, especially in the case of most police officers who are right-handed and will be shooting with their weak hand out the window.
But there are none of those issues with attempting to shoot the driver?
Shooting from a moving vehicle greatly increases the risk, whatever the target might be.
Oh, so shooting the driver in the face doesn’t increase the risk? There were no other cars near the subject vehicle and trailer. There was ZERO risk, except perhaps to the car flipping over, but that poses a much smaller risk than blasting the driver in the face with a bullet, don’t you think?
Since you have such expertise in criminal investigations, use of force, accident reconstruction, ballistics, and pursuit procedures why don’t you offer us some more of your well founded conclusions.
But since you offer that officers shooting at fleeing vehicles is a viable alternative, please provide us with a list of departments in United States where that prescribe shooting from a moving vehicle as the preferable method to end vehicle pursuits; or, perhaps a research paper that concludes these findings. The only training I might see this occurring is in acting classes in Hollywood, because they are the ones that perpetuate the myth that shooting out tires is the best and foremost strategy.
Your conclusion about boxing the car in and shooting out the tires lacks foundation. Evidence and studies over decades featuring experience and investigation show to the contrary.
Aside from the driver stopping the pursuit, the only generally accepted methods to force a fleeing passenger vehicle to stop are spike strips or the PIT maneuver. Both carry inherent risks and there have been deaths produced by both, including officers intentionally struck by the fleeing vehicle while deploying the spikes. Also, driving along side the suspect vehicle to engage with a firearm poses a higher risk for the officer being shot by the suspect or a passenger. Though the officers in these videos try this tactic to box him in, I do not recommend it personally.
Is there any recommended procedure for executing a pit manuever against a vehicle towing a trailer like that?
It looks challenge enough when it’s vehicle v. vehicle, but with a truck towing a trailer it seems to add a big level of risk.
I haven’t personally seen policy directly relating to trailers but I imagine it’s much more difficult to execute because the pivot of the hitch can absorb some of the lower force blows (reducing the effect) and there is the complication of the fleeing vehicle combination going wild as is often the case with losing control of a trailer under normal circumstances.
Do you know anything about this???
Strange. If it happened in downtown Seattle, one could posit it happened during deliberations when someone opened the door to the city council chamber.
Completely false. Hollywood created the car chase and the police are copying Hollywood to make their lives more exciting, not the other way around. Of course, other police departments aren’t following the protocol I described. That’s because they are imitating Hollywood, rather than figuring out what actions best protect the public while not using excessive force or violating the rights of the perpetrators.
In effect, all of these police officers are pretending to be Steve McQueen (the actor, not the director)–whether they realize it or not. As will be noted in McQueen’s movie history-making sequence from Bullitt (1968) below, the chasers (who were not police officers) could have easily shot out Mcqueen’s tires, killing him–and killing him was what they wanted to do in this case, since they used guns in the sequence. But, instead, they ended up dead because of their flamboyant car chase. So, even the movie made no sense. (And there are many other story holes in Bullitt.) That said, Hollywood isn’t bound to follow procedure and logic. It’s about entertainment and Bullitt is great moviemaking.
Comments are closed.