“I Love This Sh*t”: Tennessee Sheriff Boasts On Tape After Ordering Deputies To Shoot Driver In Car Chase


download-8A 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.

robyn 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”

  1. What a disgusting human being the sheriff is. This isn’t law enforcement; it’s a bunch of lawless thugs with badges whose weapons compensate for their deficiencies elsewhere. He really deserves to be in jail but if not, hope she wins this lawsuit bigtime.

    1. FHC, The problem with the lawsuit is that the Sheriff doesn’t pay, the taxpayer does. The lawsuit doesn’t directly punish the Sheriff rather in enriches the perp’s family some of whom might be perps as well.

  2. So is squeeky.

    I barely skim the turley blog and skip to the good stuff…
    Mespo and squeeky

    1. AEN:

      “Mespo is a genius…”


      According to many here, I’m just a nattering nabob. I do like the alliteration of that better.

  3. What was the original cause for the pursuit? When did they determine he was unarmed, other than the thousands of pounds of vehicle and trailer he was recklessly driving?

    I’m also surprised we still have a county in the United States named White.

  4. Ah, the age of trump, where unnecessary violence, blatant racism and bragged ignorance are saluted. And where’s my military parade? SAD!

    1. ” …unnecessary violence, blatant racism and bragged ignorance are saluted.”


      And the irony: it all comes form the Left aided by their vermin army of AntiFas!

      1. Add “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.”

        That is an understatement. I think this can be considered a potential homicide and Shoup might require a jail sentence. I think more facts are required.

  5. The U.S. justice system is fickle, mean and fills jails, “80% of the 1.5 mil people arrested under drug laws committed the crime of possession, only.” If Sherriff Shoupe hadn’t called for the driver’s murder, the guy fleeing would have received a long sentence benefitting the businesses, for whom ALEC drafts laws. But, the upside for those businesses, they may get to make a profit on Shoupe’s bail and get a profit from a private prison that he’s sent to.

    1. Linda

      Do you believe that it should be okay to possess and use (illegal) drugs as Clinton, Boosh, and Obama did, but it should illegal to sell to sell them? If so, why?

      1. Taxpayers pay an estimated $60,000 per year for each incarcerated person. The alternative ways that tax dollars could be spent should factor into legislation, enforcement, prosecutorial decisions and sentencing. The amount of danger a “law breaker” presents to the community may warrant his/her $60,000 cost each year for a lifetime.

        Locking people up because ALEC wants to enrich the bail bond and private prison industries is bad government. Families are robbed of stability and a less productive nation is created. America has the most most incarcerated population in the world. The Koch’s should be condemned for supporting ALEC.

      2. Bill McWilliams
        Wouldn’t contrasting the “guilt” of the seller vs. the user require knowledge of the situation? Judges shouldn’t have their hands tied with a 3 strikes law. The merit of drug legislation that is triggered based on amount sold, is something I can’t opine about because I haven’t studied the topic.
        A similar situation of user vs. seller is present in the case of prostitution. Why the prostitute is charged and the John isn’t, seems even less clear. If it has to do with financial benefit received, it seems like a weak
        rationale. If it has to do with the sellers’ impact in proliferating crime, affecting more people ( the definition of a seller), it seems like better logic in both the drug and prostitution cases.

  6. If he hadn’t been caught on tape this would be a “nothing burger” and the widow would have no recourse. If the case is moved to Nashville she may have a chance to win – if not she won’t. White County is a white trash region – the sheriff is well-known to be a pompous, abusive jerk but keeps getting elected. Word on the street is that this is not the first person he’s had killed.

    Next door in Putnam County is where cops stopped some folks returning from vacation – had the entire family out of the car, cuffed, on their knees and shot the family dog in front of them. They did win their appeals (in Nashville) but that trauma will surely affect them forever.

    And don’t even let me get started on Jackson County! =)

    TN is a beautiful state but I wouldn’t wanna live there again.

    1. The phrase “nothing burger” can’t find its way into the trash heap of trite expressions quickly enough to suit me.

      1. Jay:

        “The phrase “nothing burger” can’t find its way into the trash heap of trite expressions quickly enough to suit me.”


        Well, we agree on that. How about we start using “unproven lies motivated by political envy”?

  7. Oh yeah -like he was a danger to everyone. He,sooner or later, had to stop . Why not one cop car just follow the truck or place some spikes to stop him.
    An unnecessary killing.

    1. Bk:
      Who cares about the scores of motorists this maniac would have encountered before he ran out of gas! Bet you’d put your wife and kids in the lane right next to him. He’s trustworthy, right?

    2. Mrs. Dial’s attorney will point out the numerous times her husband attempted to avoid ramming the police cruisers.

      1. I think that was in 1979 and he did it twice!! Good ol’ country boy outrunning the law doesn’t end up like it did in Dukes of Hazard!

    3. “An unnecessary killing.”

      Not an unnecessary killing. This disgusting felon refused to obey police orders to stop, which is intolerable disrespect of the police. The police should have forced him to stop then beaten and kicked him to death instead of dispensing a merciful death by bullet.

      We really need to get rid of the politically correct idea that obvious criminals have rights especially those referred to by virtue signalling SJWs of the latte sipping classes as “human rights”.

  8. Guy driving a 3000 pound vehicle and a trailer ramming cop cars sounds like a righteous shoot to me. As for the redneck Sheriff, he’s surely no diplomat but hard to argue with the call when deputies lives are in jeopardy.

    1. Amen! Some people on this blog seem oblivious to the fact that a vehicle can be a dangerous weapon. My goodness, look at Paris, London, New Jersey.

      I remember from some class, the following formula, Momentum = Mass x Velocity. Which means the extra mass of the trailer makes the potential for disaster worse.

      Good riddance to the jerk.

      Plus, isn’t the Sheriff entitled to enjoy his work as much as the next guy???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  9. I wondered why, with so many police cars, they didn’t position one in front, one in back, and one on either side and gradually slow down. The cars were so positioned but not at the same time. A bit of coordination would have made a big difference. Since car chases like this one happen fairly often, it might be a good thing to add to training. If the sheriff was the best brains they had then I understand the chaotic demolition derby style chase.

      1. I had to work Trump in there somewhere. He did tell the police at a conference or something, to not be so nice.

        All that aside, after viewing the video, it seems that the pick up truck driver was completely out of control and posed an obvious threat to others as well as himself. Comparable to other acts of police shoot first and ask questions later, this was not so bad. In Europe they just put spikes across the road and the idiot slides to a halt. The main problem seems to be with the inability to control the adrenaline rush and think straight, before commenting. There didn’t seem to be anyone involved that had training in this sort of thing, or the training was how to make a head shot in this sort of thing.

        1. “I had to work Trump in there somewhere. He did tell the police at a conference or something, to not be so nice.“

          Thanks for a rare moment of self-awareness. Obsession is treatable.

        2. I agree that this sheriff is a loathsome toad. But your need to “work trump in there somewhere” is just pathetic.

          1. Jay

            Trump is the band leader for these tunes. He is partially a part of this as a support system. He is certainly clapping his hands in glee. Have you noticed how old ‘Bone Spur’ the draft dodger now wants the military to parade in front of him so he can salute. Have you stopped to think how this silver spoon who stiffed hundreds of millions of dollars by going bankrupt: banks, contractors not paid, etc, talks so loudly about fairness in international trade, etc? This is the guy who panders to the mega rich and routinely used government money earmarked for the general public to assist him in his overall business. Have you noticed how Trump talks seamlessly out of both sides of his mouth? Or have you done any thinking at all.

            1. issac – you got today’s talking points. Good for you. At least you are getting paid now. Although you will notice a sameness in your remarks to others who got the talking points.

            2. See, Isaac. Other people are noticing it, too! On the bright side, if this was the 1840s, you could probably get off on the Insanity Defence!

              Both prosecution and defence based their cases on what constituted a legal defence of insanity.[2] Both sides agreed that M’Naghten suffered from delusions of persecution. The prosecution argued that, in spite of his “partial insanity”, he was a responsible agent, capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and conscious that he was committing a crime.[3] Witnesses, including his landlady and his anatomy lecturer, were produced to testify that he appeared generally sane.[3]

              Cockburn opened his defence by acknowledging that there were difficulties in the practical application of the principle of English law that held an insane person exempt from legal responsibility and legal punishment. He went on to say that M’Naghten’s delusions had led to a breakdown of moral sense and loss of self-control, which, according to medical experts, had left him in a state where he was no longer a “reasonable and responsible being”.


              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

            3. “Trump is the band leader for these tunes. He is partially a part . . . ”

              He is “partially a part of this,” eh.

              Your whole post is just diarrhea of the keyboard.

  10. From the audio, it sounded like the sheriff said, “Use deadly force if necessary” — which is just appropriate permission to do it “if necessary.”

    But then it sounded like the sheriff said, “Take this subject out by any means necessary.” That’s not permission to use deadly force, it’s an ORDER.

    That alone should put the sheriff in hot water.

  11. Shoot out the tyres.

    Unjustified and the so-called officers of the law ought to do time; lots of it.

    1. Shooting tires from a distance is not an easy shot, particularly if the vehicle is moving. (It’s not like the movies, in which the good guy never misses.) Tires deflate quite slowly, and barring catastrophic damage, a punctured tire can roll for many miles before going flat. Most importantly, bullets that miss the tire (that is, most of them) may ricochet off the hard road surface. This poses an uncontrolled danger, especially in populated areas. The spiked strips are a much better option but must be set up ahead of the fleeing vehicle. This is a case of an unprincipled and bloodthirsty Sheriff; he had many other options.

      1. P.S. A common bullet-absorbing medium for target ranges is ground-up rubber tires. That should tell you something.

      2. So it’s difficult to hit the tires, but totally doable to hit the driver?

      3. Incorrect. This vehicle was also carrying a heavy trailer with tires. Those were the tires to strike first. Had any of the officers done so, the tires would have blown out instantly. The tires would not “deflate slowly.” You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

    2. That’s crazy talk from a guy whose never been in harm’s way. Like blathering to wound the gun-toting robber instead of shooting for center of mass. It’s a life or death situation, moron. You pick your life over his death every single time. Take a CCW class and learn how fragile life is.

  12. I have previously discussed appropriate police protocol in other article regarding police car chase cases, but nobody seems interested in applying my simple easy-to-follow common sense procedures.

    All the police had to do at the beginning of this chase sequence was to position their vehicles at the back and side of Dial’s truck, and then to simply fire their guns at the tires on Dial’s truck and the wheeled trailer attached to his truck. Without functioning tires on anything, Dial’s vehicle would be forced to advance at a snail’s pace if it could move much at all. It would then be a piece of cake to force Dial off the road, completely incapacitating his truck.

    So, why do the police insist on carrying out dangerous car chases when, in most cases (and certainly in this case), they could safely, easily, and quickly incapacitate the person’s vehicle by destroying the person’s tires?

    They do it because they think it’s a lot more fun and it gives the police some great stories to tell to whoever will listen to them. As a result, in this case, they have a really “exciting” story to tell. Not only did they have the “fun” of a (relatively) high speed pursuit, but they got to “take out” somebody. Plus, they will get to create a lot of follow up investigations, mountains of paperwork, and hours upon hours of “fun” courtroom time.

    So why spoil the party with my simple, boring fix to a problem?

    1. Please see my comment to David B. Benson above on the impracticality of “shooting out” tires. It is an unreliable way to stop a vehicle and poses a threat to the community.

      1. Shooting tires on a moving vehicle is fantasy land and it’s won’t stop the vehicle if you get lucky enough to not kill some innocent bystander with the ricochet. You don’t pull your weapon if you aren’t prepared to use it to shoot the perp.

        1. There were no vehicles anywhere near Dial’s car during the beginning of the chase, other than the police cars, so there was no danger to anyone else. And at 50 miles per hour, a blowout of the trailer tires would have added a dead weight, slowing the vehicle down considerably, while the blowout of the rear wheel tires would have slowed the vehicle to a crawl. Only in pursuits with traffic is there a safety issue for others. That wasn’t the case here and is frequently not the case in other car chases.

          If you disagree, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about and have never observed various tests of what happens when car tires blowout on the freeway. While a blowout of a single front tire at high speed can cause a vehicle to flip over, blowouts to the rear tires first drastically slow the vehicle down. And blowing out multiple tires causes the speed to slow to a crawl. Your excuses are lame.

          1. There were no vehicles anywhere near Dial’s car during the beginning of the chase, other than the police cars, so there was no danger to anyone else.

            Go back and review the first 10 seconds of the video and you’ll discover your statement wrong.

            1. And obviously that first 10 seconds was not the beginning of the chase. Where else had that vehicle been prior to getting on the highway.

              One more thing. Why was this driver being chased by LE anyway? What was the original cause of the pursuit?

          2. Naw I don’t know anything about blowouts having only litigated the Firestone tire cases for three years and babysat tires to Akron for testing. There are no cars in the frames because cops had stopped most of the traffic per protocol. Lots coming the other way and at exits thus the need to act. Oh next time you hear that breaking glass in the dead of night, call a junkman to cover your arse.

  13. I don’t have the report before me so for the purpose of debate I’ll assume the pertinent facts are listed in this article and there are no greatly important omissions. I am relying on the video mostly.

    The justification for the shooting rests with the pertinent facts related to the incident. The chest-thumping by the sheriff while rude in many ways does not bear upon the reasonableness of the force used.

    That said we need to focus on what is considered necessary use of force.

    For reference I import Washington State’s definition of “necessary”.

    RCW 9A.16.010

    (1) “Necessary” means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.

    In WA, element (1) above receives heavy emphasis and in fact cadets in the Basic Law Enforcement Academy must memorize it exactly.

    Turning to Tennessee’s incident in the recording in the car with the sheriff and another LEO, there is mentioned that the suspect in this case had rammed another police car so strongly, his vehicle climbed over the back of the patrol car. There was also an injury to another officer. These are felony assaults. Given the footage of the pursuit, there existed a high possibility of injury or death to others. These facts alone set a basis for the use of deadly force if it is judged to be necessary.

    We now reflect back to the end of the pursuit, Which in this case happened as the fleeing vehicle veered off the highway and the driver killed by gunfire. If the vehicle for example crashed into a tree and was immobilized unless the driver presented a firearm or other deadly threat to the officers I personally do not see in that case necessity in shooting.

    If the suspect vehicle otherwise would have returned to the highway and continued the pursuit and the vehicular assaults then the use of firearms can be articulated to be necessary.

    Next we factor in the reason for the original traffic stop, an element weighing towards justification of the application of deadly force rests on why the pursuit began. In many cases the fleeing felon committed a crime of violence and aside from the need to capture the suspect, there comes the probability of whether or not the suspect will harm others or officers attempting the arrest. But if there was an felonious assault committed by the suspect, in the recording shows that he allegedly committed a vehicular assault, deadly force becomes excusable.

    Its easy to arm-chair quarterback the incident but my opinion of the shooting by the officer in the pickup truck, the one shown shooting before he put the vehicle in park, that he was too hasty on shooting the weapon and that he might have been carried away in the moment. Had he waited to fire his pistol, the question of whether or not the suspect vehicle might have stopped fleeing would have been more clear.

    Nevertheless I can understand why the prosecutor’s office declined to press charges against the shooting officers. The federal section 1983 lawsuit has a different burden to prove but is measured against qualified immunity granted the slayers. I can’t predict if the plaintiff will prevail as it is not a slam dunk case. But I will say that most of the outrage generated by this incident stems from the sheriff’s hyped up comments, but it still rests on the facts of the case, though the sheriff is certainly going to gain no sympathy from a jury.

    1. “I don’t have the report before me so for the purpose of debate I’ll assume the pertinent facts are listed in this article and there are no greatly important omissions. I am relying on the video mostly.

      The justification for the shooting rests with the pertinent facts related to the incident.” — Darren Smith

      Go back to selling liquor, Darren; you made more sense then. Such a shame your resignation was accepted — but I guess pertinent facts abide.

      1. Aaron:

        Since retired peace officer Darren’s experience is incompetent in your little mind, tell us about all your training and your experience in live shooting situations. It ought to be fascinating drivel,

      2. Aaron Root Lee

        Once again, you impress with your cogent arguments, and your courtesy.

  14. > Had Shoupe not intervened (without being on the scene), Dial would likely be alive.

    That’s the only thing that matters to me.

  15. The victim’s vehicle was in a ditch and disabled. It wasn’t going anywhere. There was no need to kill him at that point. Just gratuitous violence. If the victim were black the FBI and DOJ would rush in to file federal civil rights charges against the cops. But he’s white so the government isn’t interested…no headlines…no virtue signaling….no CNN reporters blathering on and on…no BLM protests….case closed.

    1. TIN re “But he’s white so the government isn’t interested…no headlines…no virtue signaling….no CNN reporters blathering on and on…no BLM protests….case closed.”

      Very true unfortunately.

    2. TIN:
      I heard them shoot before the perp went into the ditch but assuming you’re half right, ever met a Southerner without a gun in the truck? Ever? Wanna see mine?

      1. Or mine. Either in my gas guzzling SUV or my 4 banger fuel efficient Toyota sedan. Not to mention my purse. Or my recliner, Or the bookcase/headboard above the bed. I am thinking about stashing an extra one in the microwave.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

          1. I am living in the Music Room currently (400 square feet), and the recliner is right in front of the only door. Which is like a French Door, and I can see right out of it. At night, I put a security bar under the door knob so nobody is coming in quietly.

            I still have exclusive use of the Master Bedroom in the house, but I haven’t slept in there for more than a few nights for several years. But that is good advice!

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

              1. I believe the best defense for a home invasion is a sawed-off shotgun. The only problem is it leaves messy walls.

                    1. Mespo at night after a drink faced with an intruder one’s hands might not be as sure as one would like. The sawed-off shotgun will provide that extra bit of spread so the target is surely hit with a second round ready to fire. Then if there aren’t enough pieces strewn around the room you can use the Glock or S&W. Granted the walls will be a mess, but with a little Bondo and paint, things will look fine again.

              2. That is really true for me, because I have tiny windows in the Music Room, and they are 5 feet off the ground. But, both the door and the windows are on the same side. So, I sit facing the door most of the time. I keep the 357 in the chair, so it is readily available. I live in a good area of town, and mostly all we get are car break ins. Most of which are unlocked cars. Which me and Penelope keep ours locked.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

          1. FFS – not sure the microwave would be a good idea. I would probably cook it for 3 minutes first. 😉

  16. He’s a complete nut with no respect for life. Psych tests are designed to keep these nut jobs off the force, but as we know, they occasionally slip through. I hope the widow wins her lawsuit.

    1. He’s the sheriff. He’s elected. As for the case, no jury going to fault the deputies based on that tape. That manic could have easily killed them or some soccer mom with a van load of kids.

      1. mespo, I couldn’t watch the tape because of a technical problem, but the words of the police officer still lead me to the belief that this has to be investigated. Are we certain the truck couldn’t be stopped by road devices that blow out tires, could traffic have been diverted, etc. I have no problem with police officers protecting the community and themselves even at the cost of the life of a perp, but with the words stated I believe one has to look deeper.

        1. Listen the stuff you see on TV is just that. When you talk to cops you realize that. You’re on a busy interstate with multiple exits. You can’t run a spike strip at every place he could possibly turn off or where he could simply turn around in the median. He was a menace and was dealt with the way you have to deal with a menace. Amazing how little sympathy some (not you) feel for the potential victims and instead for the perp. They need to repeat in their heads “HE WAS PROBABLY GOING TO KILL SOMEONE.”

          1. I was able to see a short strip of the chase. The road was relatively clear. This was a pickup truck with a load behind and they were ramming the load which didn’t really affect the truck all that much. If they could shoot the man they could shoot the tires which somewhat impairs the truck and slows it down. Would the truck have slowed down if they stayed back? I don’t know. I generally side with the police, but in this case, the optics are very bad. I believe this requires an in-depth investigation to determine what charge if any should be held against the police officer. I don’t think the answers solely lie in the video as shown though I have only seen a short strip.

            “Amazing how little sympathy some (not you) feel for the potential victims and instead for the perp.”

            I agree wholeheartedly, but there is a point where police action crosses the line. This was not an action where an officer had to react in seconds and the episode on the tape played out over a period of 20 minutes on tape. An autopsy of what occurred in such a criminal investigation may lead to a better solution. I still think the tacks could have been attempted along with better blockades.

            If you deal in criminal law you may have been exposed other similar occurrences.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: