Tennessee Sheriff Orders Man Murdered On Video During Car Chase, Brags On Camera “I Love This Sh_t. God, I Tell You What, I Thrive On It.”

Tennessee Sheriff Oddie Shoup is being sued for excessive force after ordering a suspect in a police chase murdered. He repeatedly said on camera to “kill that motherf*cker” because “ain’t gonna tear up my cars.” After the man was murderd he said that “I love this sh*t. God I tell you what, I thrive on it” according to a report:

A Tennessee sheriff is being sued for using excessive force after he was recorded boasting he had told officers to shoot a man rather than risk damaging police cars by ramming him off the road.

“They said ‘we’re ramming him,’” Sheriff Oddie Shoupe of White County said on tape in the aftermath of the killing of suspect Michael Dial. “I said, ‘Don’t ram him, shoot him.’ Fuck that shit. Ain’t gonna tear up my cars.”

Shoupe arrived on the scene shortly after police had shot Dial at the conclusion of a low-speed chase, clearly upset he had missed the excitement.

“I love this shit,” Shoupe said, apparently unaware that his comments were being picked up by another deputy’s body-worn camera. “God, I tell you what, I thrive on it.

“If they don’t think I’ll give the damn order to kill that motherfucker they’re full of shit,” he added, laughing. “Take him out. I’m here on the damn wrong end of the county,” he said.

Shoupe’s comments have prompted a federal lawsuit from Dial’s widow, Robyn Dial, alleging the use of excessive force against her late husband, who was unarmed.

“It was not only inappropriate but also unconscionable for Defendant Shoupe to give the order to use deadly force,” the filing states, calling his decision proof of a “malicious and sadistic mindset”. The suit also names the county, the city of Sparta and the two officers who fired their weapons.

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

Police had initially attempted to pull Dial over in April last year for driving on a suspended licence. He drove away, but the fact that he was driving a 40-odd-year-old pickup truck with a fully loaded trailer severely restricted his speed.

DeKalb County deputies, who began the pursuit before White County deputies took over, told investigators it was “more like a funeral procession” than a highway chase, with speeds topping out around 50mph.

Deputies tried using a PIT (Pursuit Intervention Technique) maneuver to slow Dial’s car, a common police tactic involving a police car nudging another vehicle to turn it sideways.

But Shoupe radioed officers to tell them to stop attempting to do that, instead ordering them to shoot the driver.

When a deputy had successfully nudged Dial off the road, Reserve Deputy Adam West, who was in pursuit in his own personal vehicle, fired three shots as the vehicle went down into a ditch. Dial died of a gunshot wound to the head.

In June, the county district attorney declared the shooting justified.

Dial told Tennessee’s News Channel 5 that she believed her husband had tried to drive away from the police because he was scared, and said she could not make sense of the order to shoot. “I feel with every part of me that’s exactly what they wanted to do was kill him.”

The sheriff’s office declined to comment to the Guardian. (source)

“Death by cop” is not an exaggeration. According to Mapping Police Violence, 1147 people were killed in routine encounters with police in 2017 alone. The claims of “freedom” or “liberty,” or the provisions against “unreasonable search and seizure” in the US Constitution are moot points from another time when compared to the reality of what police do regularly and how the judicial system will almost without fail, always favor the police regardless of what they do.

In the case of this Tennessee sheriff, he was laughing as he ordered the execution of this driver. While this might seem abnormally sadistic, it is actually quite common. The police are known even to laugh at people as the kill them or brag about murder for fun as though it were a game. A particularly horrible case that illustrates the callousness which pervades modern American policing happened in December 2017 when a police officer, Philip Brailsford, gave a series of loud and angry commands to a man clearly terrified and begging for his life. After a short time, Officer Brailsford executed the man on camera. It later came out in court that he had a history of violence and complaints against him, and on his police-issued rifle he had written the words “You’re F*cked”:

The Arizona shooting, by Philip “Mitch” Brailsford, then an officer with the Mesa Police Department, occurred after officers responded to a call about a man allegedly pointing a rifle out of a fifth-floor window at a La Quinta Inn. Inside the room, Shaver, 26, had been doing rum shots with a woman he had met earlier that day and showing off a pellet gun he used in his job in pest control.

The graphic video, recorded by Brailsford’s body camera, shows Shaver and the woman exiting the hotel room and immediately complying with commands from multiple officers.

After entering the hallway, Shaver immediately puts his hands in the air and lays down on the ground while informing the officer that no one else was in the hotel room.

“If you make a mistake, another mistake, there is a very severe possibility that you’re both going to get shot. Do you understand?” an officer yells before telling Shaver to “shut up.”

For the next five minutes, officers give Shaver a series of instructions. First, an officer tells Shaver to put both of his hands on top of his head, then he instructs him to cross his left foot over his right foot.

“If you move, we’re going to consider that a threat and we are going to deal with it and you may not survive it,” the officer said.

The officer then has the woman crawl down the hallway, where she is taken into custody. Shaver remains on the ground in the hallway, his hands on his head.

The officer tells Shaver to keep his legs crossed and push himself up into a kneeling position. As Shaver pushes himself up, his legs come uncrossed, prompting the officer to scream at him.

“I’m sorry,” Shaver says, placing his hands near his waist, prompting another round of screaming.

“You do that again, we’re shooting you, do you understand?” an officer yells.

“Please do not shoot me,” Shaver begs, his hands up straight in the air.

At the officer’s command, Shaver then crawls down the hallway, sobbing. At one point, he reaches back – possibly to pull up his shorts – and Brailsford opens fire, striking Shaver five times.

According to the police report, Brailsford was carrying an AR-15 rifle with the phrase “You’re F-ed” etched into the weapon. The police report also said the “shots were fired so rapidly that in watching the video at regular speed, one cannot count them.”

Brailsford testified in court that he believed Shaver was reaching for a gun.

“If this situation happened exactly as it did that time, I would have done the same thing,” Brailsford said during the trial. “I believed 100 percent that he was reaching for a gun.”

No gun was found on Shaver’s body. Two pellet rifles used in Shaver’s pest-control job were later found in the hotel room.

After two days of deliberation, jurors found Brailsford not guilty of second degree murder as well as of a lesser charge of reckless manslaughter.

“The justice system miserably failed Daniel (Shaver) and his family,” said Mark Geragos, an attorney for Shaver’s widow, according to the Arizona Republic.

Attorneys for the officer had petitioned to keep the video from being released, and a judge agreed to block its release to the public until after the trial had concluded.

Brailsford’s attorney, Mike Piccarreta, told The Post in a previous interview that he thinks the body camera footage clears his client.

“It demonstrates that the officer had to make a split-second decision when [Shaver] moved his hands toward the small of his back after being advised that if he did, he’d be shot,” Piccarreta told The Post in 2016.

Piccarreta also said he wasn’t sure his client would be interested in trying to get his police job back.

Shaver’s widow and parents have filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the city of Mesa. (source)

In spite of the evidence, Brailsford was acquitted in January 2018 of all charges of murder. He is now being sued, but he will never pay his own money because it is the city of Mesa, AZ that is being sued by law- the taxpayers will pay for his personal actions. Not only that, but his sergeant has backed his choice to murder the man.

Brailsford says he has “retired” from being a cop and has moved on with his life. But Daniel Shaver, the man he murdered, is dead and his family is destroyed.

The murder of Sam Dubose. The cop lunges at Mr. Dubose and shoots him in the head, after which the car starts moving because his foot is no longer on the breaks because he is dead. Officer Ray Tensing of the University of Cincinnati Police was fired and his case did go to trial. It was proved that he did murder Mr. Dubose and it was unjustified, but he was never convicted and has now moved on with his life. His family sued and won a $4.85 million settlement, but this was paid by the University, not the officer.

Police brutality does not include just being killed by cops. It includes the regular legitimization of the use of excessive and deadly force against people that cause serious and sometimes life-long injuries. Often times the cops are committing serious crimes- felonies- that if a non-policeman committed them, he would be arrested and sentenced to years in jail, not to mention being stripped of voting rights, gun rights, and the ability to work in many jobs that would pay a decent salary. Yet when police can do the same actions, many will in return will receive an award from their departments.

Take for example the case of Christopher Harris. A police officer suspected him of being an assault suspect. Instead of taking time to think, the cop just attacked Mr. Harris as he was walking outside of a cinema and smashed him against a wall. Mr. Harris was put into a coma and became permanently disabled, he suffered a traumatic brain injury, and he died six years later from complications caused by the injury:

A man who suffered a catastrophic brain injury after being slammed into a concrete wall by a King County sheriff’s deputy six years ago has died.

Christopher Sean Harris was permanently disabled after he was mistakenly identified as a suspect, chased and then pushed into a wall outside Seattle’s Cinerama theater by Deputy Matthew Paul.

King County and the sheriff’s office settled a lawsuit filed by Harris’ wife, Sarah Harris, for $10 million in 2011 after she claimed Paul had been negligent and used excessive force.

Harris, 36, formerly of Edmonds, died Thursday, according to his wife’s attorney, Sim Osborn.

“I’m pretty sad this morning,” said Osborn, who has been in contact with Sarah Harris. “The family, they’re destroyed. She’s destroyed.”

Reached by email on Friday, Sheriff John Urquhart said, “I am very sorry to hear of the passing of Christopher Harris. My sincere condolences to his family on behalf of the Sheriff’s Office.”

Urquhart was a spokesman for the Sheriff’s Office in 2009.

Osborn said Harris’ cause of death will be investigated, but he believes it was the result of “complications from his injuries.”

Sarah Harris and her husband moved into their own house in Olympia shortly after their case was settled, and she was his primary caregiver for the past six years. (source)

This incident happened in 2009. While Deputy Paul does not appear in the 2016 Seattle Police Officer list, he remained on the force until at least 2015. Three years after the 2009 assault, he was sued again in court over a similar case where he assaulted a drunken man unprovoked and smashed his face into the ground, causing serious injuries:

You don’t even have to be in a city to be at risk of death by cop. You could be camping, or just homeless and in the wilderness.

Take for example the murder of James Boyd. A homeless man and paranoid-schizophrenic (as many people who are homeless have mental problems), somebody called the police about Mr. Boyd for “illegally camping”. A squad of police came with rifles, and disturbed him while he was laying under a plastic sheet. According to what happened next, Mr. Boyd panicked because he was not fully aware of what was happening and an officer said he pulled out a pocketknife (it is common for homeless people to be attacked, raped, and murdered by other homeless people, so many homeless are naturally very wary of being disturbed while sleeping).

The police officers backed up and yelled at him to “drop” to the ground. When the confused man did not “drop” as fast as they wanted him to, they riddled his body with bullets, beanbag rounds, and then sent police dogs to mangle his corpse as the video shows. The Albuquerque Police Department, which was criticized for having a history of police brutality, later settled with the family of Mr. Boyd for $5 million, a sum which the taxpayers of Albuquerque paid and for which no policeman went to prison for murder:

The city has agreed to pay $5 million to the family of James Boyd, a homeless man who was shot and killed by Albuquerque police last year in a high-profile case that made national headlines.

The settlement was announced by the family’s attorney, Shannon Kennedy, on Friday and confirmed by city officials.

Lawsuits stemming from police shootings have cost taxpayers more than $25 million in recent years; Albuquerque police have shot more than 40 people since 2010, 29 of them fatally.

Kennedy issued a statement that said the family was pleased its lawsuit has led to changes within the Albuquerque Police Department – specifically, improving the department’s treatment of people who are homeless or mentally ill.

“The family sought justice to ensure that what happened to Mr. Boyd never happens to anyone else, and they believe the city is taking necessary steps to ensure officers are provided adequate training, supervision and support and that Mr. Boyd’s death changes policing for the better in Albuquerque,” Kennedy said in a statement. “The family hopes Albuquerque becomes a model for other cities struggling with the same issues around our country.”

City Attorney Jessica Hernandez said in a prepared statement that the parties thought it was the right time to settle the case.

“We are hopeful that resolving this difficult and emotional case is a significant step in moving forward as a community,” she said. “The City and the Department are committed to the reform efforts that are already underway, including specialized training in managing situations involving mental health issues.”

Former Detective Keith Sandy and officer Dominique Perez are charged with second-degree murder in the shooting, which took place in March 2014 at the end of an hourslong standoff in the Sandia foothills where Boyd was camping illegally.

Boyd suffered from schizophrenia and had been in and out of jail and the state’s mental hospital in Las Vegas, N.M., numerous times over the years.

His death sparked a national outcry when Perez’s on-body camera showed that Boyd appeared ready to surrender when he was fatally shot.

Boyd’s family filed suit in June 2014, describing a scene in which 41 officers went to an open-space area just east of Copper because Boyd had threatened an officer with a knife. It contended there was a lack of command and control over the officers before the shooting.

After more than four hours, Boyd was shot as a group of Albuquerque SWAT officers, K9 units and Sandy, who was a member of the now-disbanded Repeat Offender Project, tried to arrest him because nightfall was approaching, according to police reports on the shooting.

The settlement brings the city’s tab for officer misconduct lawsuits since 2010 to at least $28 million, though exact figures weren’t available Friday.

The fatal shooting of Ken Ellis III and Christopher Torres resulted in $8 million and $6 million settlements, respectively.

“For far too long, the Albuquerque Police Department fostered policies and practices that failed officers and, in turn, the most vulnerable in our community,” Kennedy said. “The policies and practices created an atmosphere where the officers most indifferent to human life could recklessly interact with residents, killing them without significant concern or consequence.”

Albuquerque police are putting in to place a number of court-enforceable reforms. The reforms were agreed to after the federal Department of Justice investigated APD and found it had a pattern of excessive force, which included police shootings. (source)

Now in all fairness, one does not want to take the view that ALL COPS ARE BAD. Police are necessary in society because we live in a post-original sin world. Ideas about a “crime-free” society are not possible because crime, or violations of the law, are a product of sin. As long as there is sin in the world, there will be crime. When dealing with communities of people, especially large numbers with diverse views, it is inevitable that disagreements will arise that can turn deadly and lead to social disarray. While people need to do their best to manage their own affairs, the fact is that in an environment of diverse views and beliefs there needs to be a social means of handling problems when they happen in order to prevent issues from becoming more serious than they already are. This is where the police come in, because their job is historically to maintain general public order, and part of that duty means dealing with conflict between people in order to preserve said order and then examining the incident against the laws of the society to determine if a crime happened and if so, what punishment is necessary.

This is part of the inverse relationship that exists between “freedom” and “order.” The more “freedom” that a society has, the less order that it has because people are “free” to make choices and live their lives as they please, but when conflicts happen the social order necessary that would be necessary to solve those problems in an organized, efficient, and just way often does not exist, resulting in long-term disorder and social decline. Likewise, the more “order” that a society has, the less “freedom” it has, and so while problems can be solved with greater ease and efficiency, it allows for abuse by refusing to recognize the legitimate exceptions in human affairs that do happen and to allow for men to deal with them in their appropriate ways, which when not allowed to happen leads to social decline.

The goal for any society is to arrive at a balance of “freedom” and “order”, and this balance looks different for every society, for what may work with one group of people may not work with another. What matters is that regardless of how the balance works, that whatever balance is used meets the needs of the people as best as possible, striving for perfection in an imperfect work and knowing that the world will not be made perfect until Christ returns.

As far as police are concerned, police are often times forced into difficult and high-stress situations. They have to make quick decisions that sometimes have life-or-death consequences. Unfortunately, not all policemen are going to make the best decision, whether it is a potentially violent conflict or giving out a speeding ticket. They are human beings too.

The trends of police violence and “death by cop” point to a social phenomenon known as the “militarization” of the police. This has been written about extensively and was covered by the 2016 documentary Do Not Resist, which covers how through Department of Defense programs beginning in 1997 that increased sharply after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the Federal government directly subsidized the militarization of local police departments by giving them military-grade weapons, vehicles, and other items. The result has been the transformation of local police into veritable “standing armies” in every state.

Decades ago, President Eisenhower warned in his final speech as president about the rise of what he called the “military-industrial complex”, which was the collusion of government and business to produce military goods in peacetime. He warned that the complex was a threat to the freedom of the American people and that if not dealt with, the complex would take over the country:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. (source)

His warnings went unheeded. The modern militarized police and subsequent police brutality is a fruit of what Eisenhower feared would happen.

So why does all of this matter?

People in America are terrified about BEING KILLED IN A TERRORIST ATTACK FROM MUSLIMS. Now it is true that Islamic terrorism is a real danger, and it should be taken seriously.

However, the reality is that in America you are far more likely to be killed by a “good ol’ red-white-and-blue, all-American” police officer who has been trained that he is THE LAW and you are subject to obey his every command, even if they are illegal or immoral, and regardless of whether you do or do not, he can still attack and even kill you and not only will all charges be dropped against him, but he will be back on the streets the next day ready to do it again to somebody else.

Islamic terrorism does pose a threat, but it is at best a secondary issue. The real threat comes from within, which is that the American people have absorbed the Darwinian philosophy of “might makes right” that is reflected in how the USA treats other countries and most importantly, how she treats her own people through the legal system, which is an extension of how the government believes she owns all people with US citizenship as literal corporate property and as such can treat them just like how a farmer treats an animal.

Don’t think you are an exception, because race, class, or wealth does not matter here. This is about power that is out of control, and the pursuit of power at another man’s expense makes no exceptions for who it affects.

Police murdering Jason Harrison, a mentally-ill schizophrenic man on his porch after his mother called police to ask for their help with getting him to the hospital for treatment. No police were charged, and nobody went to jail.