Community | January 28, 2013 | 90 comments

Milwaukee County sheriff says 911 no longer best option, urges residents to learn to use guns

source: http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/milwaukee-county-sheriff-says-no-longer-...

Radical_Centrist

http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/milwaukee-county-...

A sheriff who released a radio ad urging Milwaukee-area residents to learn to handle firearms so they can defend themselves while waiting for police said Friday that law enforcement cutbacks have changed the way police can respond to crime.

In the 30-second commercial, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. says personal safety is no longer a spectator sport.

"I need you in the game," he says.

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," he adds. "You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. ... Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there."

The ad has generated sharp criticism from other area officials and anti-violence advocates. The president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Roy Felber, said it sounds like a call to vigilantism.

"That doesn't sound too smart," Felber said. "People have the right to defend themselves, but they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands."

Under Wisconsin's "castle doctrine," someone who uses deadly force against an unlawful intruder to their home, business or vehicle is presumed to have acted reasonably. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Justice said that as of this week, there are about 155,000 concealed carry permits in Wisconsin.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clarke said he just wants people to know what their options are. While self-defense isn't for everyone, some people see personal safety as their own responsibility, he said, and they should be trained properly.

"I'm not telling you to 'Hey, pick up a gun and blast away.' ... People need to know what they are doing if they chose that method — to defend themselves," he said.

But he also said he wanted to call on residents to be law enforcement "partners." He said he could either whine about budget cuts that forced him to lay off 48 deputies last year or he could get creative.

"People are responsible to play a role in their own safety, with the help of law enforcement," Clarke said. "I'm here to do my part, but we have fewer and fewer resources. We're not omnipresent, and we have to stop giving people that impression."

"After sitting down and thinking about this, I'm thinking 'Hey, I've got an untapped reserve over here, and it's the public,'" Clarke said.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's office released a statement criticizing the ad: "Apparently Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie."

Barrett was beaten up several years ago by someone with a tire iron, and Clarke said he thought that would make the mayor "a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."

Jeri Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, said Clarke took a dangerous position with his ad. She pointed to the case of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida who fatally shot an unarmed 17-year-old following an altercation. Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, claiming self-defense under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

"I feel like this is such an irresponsible thing for our chief public safety officer of a county to do," Bonavia said. "I think he owes this community an apology. And if he really believes that he's not capable of providing for our public safety he should get a different job."



Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/milwaukee-county-sheriff-say...

http://youtu.be/-8TCx-sM1vw
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   US Politics,   1 more
  2. tags:
    Guns,  911,  2nd Amendment,  Gun Violence,  2 more
  3.     
    |

90 comments // Milwaukee County sheriff says 911 no longer best option, urges residents to learn to use guns // Video

  • matka
    • 0
      matka  

    • I live in South Milwaukee; used to live in Big Mil. This Co. Sheriff Clarke
      is jackass from word go, and then some.

    • 3 months ago
  • wolfess
    • +2
      wolfess  

    • A couple of decades ago the police department in a small town in Texas went out on strike and what they discovered was that since many citizens in the area had guns, the crime rate actually went DOWN -- not sure this move by Sheriff Clarke isn't a pretty damned good idea.

    • 4 months ago
  • FoosMaster
    • +1
      FoosMaster  

    • I believe in the right to have a gun but I still have not heard Any good reason for having an Assault rifle or Extended magazines, not One good reason!
      Fear Mongering, as this sheriff is doing, helps Nobody but the gun manufacturers.
      The most avid gun rights advocates like to keep saying that Any gun control is “taking all their guns away”. Why can’t those people understand that we only want to eliminate the Sale of assault weapons and extended magazines Not ALL guns and Not to take a gun away that you already have? If you continue to ignore those Facts then You will be ignored.

    • 4 months ago
  • AmericanStandard
  • mitekillem
    • +1
      mitekillem  

    • We should seriously change the way cops operate. The Police force should be here to keep peace and order. -Not to disperse protests and write traffic tickets.

      1. There should be a static base of police officer to per population ratio. Officers should not have to worry about being laid off or fired due to budget cuts. Their jobs are already hard enough.
      -If we can secure their funding based on population, and not crime rates, then we help them to be better staffed, less stressed, and will increase response times, thus saving lives. -If crime rates go down, you don't need less officers, you will always need them for something. Should they have an abundance of free time then we could put them to work in the community, or reallocate them to schools, etc. They could aid in community programs where man-power is short.
      Allow cops to be a force of good, positive action, and you will see respect restored to them in the community, and you will see crime rates drop further.

      2. We need to change the way that promotions are done in the police force.
      Currently, they are pitted against one another, and use numbers to quantify a raise. i.e. number of successful arrests/convictions, number of cases solved successfully, number of traffic tickets written and total sum of bonds made, etc.
      -The police force is a service to the people for protection, investigation, and conflict resolution. They shouldn't have to write tickets to make-up for the lack of funding from the State, nor should they be promoted because of their ability to write more tickets than another office. -Nor should the number of convictions be used as promotion. We don't need to keep our prisons at full capacity if it's unnecessary. Instead their full log of service should be analyzed. Their ability to provide service to the community should be rewarded, as their ability to resolve conflicts without the need of arrests.

      Changing these two fundamental things could change our police force entirely, and also how people view and react to them.

    • 4 months ago
  • Mark701
    • +3
      Mark701  

    • Sounds like this guy is pushing to get some cops rehired. Regardless to encourage even more people to arm themselves and learn how to shoot makes it more dangerous for him and his fellow officers.

    • 4 months ago
  • alexandrekBack
    • +1
      alexandrekBack  

    • This is the fight which need focus from all of us,
      self defence is not a good solution, US is sliding toward a somalia like system, our pressure shouldn't be on gun or no gun but on F&cking clean and reorganize the police forces, USA needs an efficient and good police.
      Arming citizen to balance their incompetence is a dangerous solution, a coward and lazy way to tackle the issues.
      Clean your forces and don't ask people to do your job!

    • 4 months ago
  • AmericanStandard
    • +1
      AmericanStandard  
    • alexandrekBack:

      So.... where is it that you live again? You still have never answered this. Further in the USA civillians use deadly force 2 times as often as Police and they are 5 times less likely to misidentify an intruder as a criminal. Further citizens are less likely to shoot innocent bystanders than police.

    • 4 months ago
  • Dagum
    • +4
      Dagum  

    • Police rarely stop a crime in the middle of commission. Most of the time the police show up just in time to get the body, or take the victim to the hospital to get a rape kit done.

      It's your right but also your duty to defend yourself. Delegate that duty at your own risk...

    • 4 months ago
  • wally60
  • Dagum
  • jimstoner
    • -1
      jimstoner  
    • Image

    • The U.S. has 5% of the world’s population, 50% of the world’s guns and the world’s highest rate of gun violence. Inside the United States, the area in which people live and own more guns than the rest of the country suffer gun violence at twice the rate than areas where people who do not own as many guns live.

      The U.S. has more guns than any other country in the world and has more gun violence than any other country in the world. The Southern States have more guns than any other citizens in the U.S. and suffer more gun violence than any other citizens in the U.S.

      The more guns a particular demographic owns, the more gun violence they suffer from.

    • 4 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
  • jimstoner
    • +3
      jimstoner  
    • Image
    • Radical_Centrist:

      No they are not. You just don't like them. You don't even pay attention to your own submission. The crime rate in the U.S. has gone down over the last 30 years and gun advocates say you still need more guns. Gun ownership has gone down and crime rates have gone down. More guns are owned in the South and more gun violence happens in the South.

      Did you know that the U.K. calls verbally threatening a person a violent crime? I guess it never occurred to you to check the difference in what the two countries call a violent crime. Did you know that the U.K calls all crimes no matter what the outcome as violent? Do you actually believe the U.K. has more physically violent crime than the U.S.?

    • 4 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
  • jimstoner
  • alexandrekBack
  • alexandrekBack
  • Radical_Centrist
  • alexandrekBack
  • Radical_Centrist
  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
  • jimstoner
    • +2
      jimstoner  
    • Image
    • AmericanStandard:

      You are right. I should have said the highest rate of gun violence in the Western World.

      Zimbabwe and Columbia have more gun violence than the United States. Along with Mexico and Paraguay.

      As far as the Western nations are concerned, including the U.K., the story is quite different.

      America’s homicide rate by firearm per 100,000 people is 2.97. Here is how the rest of the Western World compares.

      Germany- 0.47, Australia- 0.31, U.K.- 0.12, Canada- 0.54, Ireland-0.32, Denmark-0.26, Finland- 0.43, New Zealand- 0.18, Switzerland- 0.56. This trend with Western and emerging nations continues. Singapore’s homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 is 0.02. The U.S. has almost 6 times the homicide rate by firearm than any nation in the Western World.

      Of all homicides committed, the percentage of homicides committed by firearms in America is 65%. Twice the percentage of any other Western country except Switzerland.

      The overall homicide rate per 100,000 people in the U.S. is 4.55. The overall homicide rate in the rest of the Western World is:

      Germany-1.17, Australia- 1.57, U.K- 1.45, Canada- 1.58, Ireland- 1.10, Denmark-1.09, Finland- 2.19, New Zealand- 1.17, Switzerland- 0.96. America’s overall homicide rate is 300% higher than the next Western nation.

      Of the 10 nations with the highest rate of homicide by firearms, 70% have the right to bear arms.

      Of the 10 nations with the lowest rate of homicide by firearms, 70% do not have the right to bear arms.

      So you are right. America does not have the most gun violence in the world. America is outdone by the likes of Columbia, Belarus, Guatemala and the Ukraine, but in the Western World, U.S. gun violence makes America a statistical outlier.

      Of the 38 countries the United Nations compiled firearm statistics on, only 8 had more homicides by firearm per 100,000 people than the United States. These are countries that America would never measure their country against for anything. If you want to measure America’s level of gun violence against them you go right ahead.

    • 4 months ago
  • Paratus
    • -1
      Paratus  

    • The man is a realist. People need to listen to him. People also need to put an end to the loonies trying to minimize their freedom.

    • 4 months ago
  • alexandrekBack
  • Tayllerand
  • Tayllerand
    • +1
      Tayllerand  

    • Kudos for him, never wait for the police to rescue you, defend your life until they get to your house. That's what gun haters don't freaking understand.

      The End.
      PS(MMMMMMMEEEEEEEOOOOOOOWWWWWW)

    • 4 months ago
  • tverdell
  • Radical_Centrist
  • alexandrekBack
  • oldbanjo
    • +2
      oldbanjo  

    • I Spartanburg County SC the Sheriff put a notice in the paper telling women to get guns and training to protect themselves from rape. In Kennesaw, Ga they have an ordnance that requires all home owners to own a gun. The crime rate dropped after it was passed. When the police see that they have a problem that they can't handle they should tell the public. When I got my concealed weapons permit I asked the police what they thought about people having them and the comment that I always got was that there are too many bad guns on the street, we need more good guns.

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
    • +4
      jimstoner  

    • “I need you in the game," he says.
      "With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option." It sounds to me like Sheriff D. Clarke Jr. is admitting that budget cuts means Milwaukee County residents are almost on their own and he thought he should let them know about it.

      I guess that’s small government, or government that does not meddle in peoples lives.

      Besides, if I have a gun, how could the hardened, possibly already been in gun fights (and won) criminal that confronts me kill me with his?

      I think there are a lot of crime victims that are survivors, but would be dead if they had started shooting at people who commit crimes for a living.

      How come a lot of people with guns are sure they are Wyatt Earp and the other guys with guns are not better gunslingers than they are? Especially the ones that use guns as a tool of the trade. Like criminals.

      “I’ll kill any man that threatens me.” Any man? Really? I would rather trust in the rule of law and a well policed community thank you. But that’s just me.

    • 4 months ago
  • MSII
    • +3
      MSII  
    • jimstoner:

      Very well said.

      "budget cuts means Milwaukee County residents are almost on their own and he thought he should let them know about it." "
      I guess that’s small government, or government that does not meddle in peoples lives."

      yup, it's the right-wingers dream world, back to the law-of-the-jungle and nothing less...

    • 4 months ago
  • puzyboi
    • -2
      puzyboi [removed]  
    • jimstoner:

      No community or citizen is or ever can be guaranteed the aid of law enforcement in a moments time of crisis. I'd rather side at being armed with the remote chance of losing to a weapon carrying criminal than being unarmed and losing to a weapon carrying criminal. I would prefer dying in an attempt to protect my family from a sadistic rapist than to sit shivering, pissing in my pants at the hands of a criminal while watching him taking turns with my wife and 3 daughters. Besides it's my 2nd amendment right to bear arms friend.

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
    • +5
      jimstoner  
    • puzyboi:

      Here is how it would go for most crime victims if they had guns too.

      My wife was car jacked because she didn’t have a gun, but she will be home soon.
      Or.
      My wife got car jacked and she had a gun. We are having her funeral on Thursday.


      I know of a country that cherishes their right to own guns. They say they must own guns to protect themselves. However, this country has more deaths by gun violence than any other country per capita. To correct this problem, they say they need more guns. This approach makes no sense to anybody but them. I guess the people who are not dying in their countries from gun violence are just wrong.

    • 4 months ago
  • puzyboi
    • -3
      puzyboi [removed]  
    • jimstoner:

      I like how you theorize how things would go for most crime victims. Not sure where you live but most victims of violent crimes end up dead. But a nice hypothetical and fictional scenerio. Just as valid as this one...My wife got car jacked and because she was a pretty woman the thief also decided to brutally rape her. When she fought back with her bare hands he stabbed her 40 times. Sure wish she had had a gun. If you wish to be a passive observer in a violent prone society that is your right, just don't attempt to trample on mine or expect law abiding gun toting citizens to give up their weapons, it'll never happen. Next topic?

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
    • +2
      jimstoner  
    • puzyboi:

      Nice hypothetical and a fictional scenario. Just as valid as this one. My wife got car jacked and she would have been just fine but she was stupid enough to pull a gun on hardened criminals, so they raped her and shot her in the head with the hand gun I gave her.

    • 4 months ago
  • puzyboi
    • -3
      puzyboi [removed]  
    • jimstoner:

      Yes yours is just as valid, but I like mine better as it's more realistic. No doubt a hardened criminal would just free the wife unharmed either way. Look friend, as I said you have every right to go through your own life free of guns. It would be just as ridiculous for me to force you to own one as it would be for you to force me to go without one. Peace.

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
    • +4
      jimstoner  
    • puzyboi:

      Who is trying to take your guns away? In your scenario, a citizen can use a gun to defend themselves. Who says you can’t. Hand your family members all the hand guns you want too. Putting regulations on assault weapons will not stop your family from using a .38 or even a .357 to protect themselves.

      Just how practical would it be for your family to try to use an assault rifle to protect themselves from a car jacking or any other crime for that matter? I am not suggesting Americans should not be able to defend themselves from crimes. I am suggesting that the fact Americans own more guns than any other citizens in the world might have something to do with Americans suffering more gun violence than any other citizens in the world.

      If guns actually protect a person from gun crimes, shouldn’t the citizens with the most guns have the lowest rates of gun violence instead of the other way around?

      What makes you think my family do not own guns? We don’t own an assault rifles.

    • 4 months ago
  • puzyboi
    • -1
      puzyboi [removed]  
    • jimstoner:

      You're changing the game. Assault weapons weren't even part of our argument until you brought it up. I do not fear anyone taking my guns away and am comfortable owning and using one in self defense. Carrying an assault weapon in a car for self defense would be asinine, too difficult to manuever in tight spots like the front seat of car. Now a Glock with a ten round clip would take out any bully attempting to harass my wife or family. I Don't have a problem with assault rifles although limiting a clip to maybe 10 rounds would be acceptable. A man familiar with weapons could change out a clip in a couple of seconds anyway. Never said I thought your family didn't own guns but your lack of advocacy and general negative attitude toward them would cause me to believe you didn't. I'm not here to psycho analyze why violent people do what they do. Just here to defend my right and the right of Americans to own weapons and use them responsibly to either hunt or protect themselves

    • 4 months ago
  • Joeydee44
    • 0
      Joeydee44  
    • jimstoner:

      Or "my wife had a gun in her car to prevent her from getting car-jacked but then I caught her looking funny at some other guy at the bar and we got into a big argument on the way home and I shot her". Betcha that happens more than Puzyboi's scenario.

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
    • +3
      jimstoner  
    • puzyboi:

      I wasn't changing the game. At least I didn’t mean to. I was not suggesting people should not have the right to defend themselves with hand guns. I was suggesting a lot more crime victims would be dead if they tried.

      I don’t even think a regulation that would keep an assault rifle out of your hands would make a bit of difference in the world. You can tape two clips together and have twice the rounds any regulation could limit a clip to hold. A regulation that kept these kinds of weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, even if it put some sort of wait time or extra small burden on legitimate law abiding citizens does not seem unreasonable to me.

    • 4 months ago
  • puzyboi
    • -1
      puzyboi [removed]  
    • jimstoner:

      Well now that you've clarified your position I would tend to agree with much of it. I would still rather take the chance of being able to properly protect myself during an assault than face an intruder without a weapon. People who own weapons should be required to have a bare minimum of instruction. Current laws should be better enforced.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • MSII
  • puzyboi
  • EdJoyProductions
    • +3
      EdJoyProductions  
    • puzyboi:

      The other interesting thing that he failed to mention is what happens when you go and shoot a supposed bad guy and claim self-defense. There is the matter of legal entanglement and fees. It is not as if innocent people never go to jail or have to clear their names, especially if you are basically admitting that the police force is not exactly running at peak performance.

    • 4 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
  • puzyboi
  • EdJoyProductions
    • +1
      EdJoyProductions  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      I agree to your statement, however, the lackadaisical way in which this statement was made to the public should have included some details so people don't start shooting family members getting up in the middle of the night to get a glass of milk.

      It is the fear inducing aspect without properly thinking out the statement.

    • 4 months ago
  • Joeydee44
  • puzyboi
  • Radical_Centrist
  • puzyboi
  • FoosMaster
  • puzyboi
  • FoosMaster
  • FoosMaster
  • EdJoyProductions
  • Radical_Centrist
    • 0
      Radical_Centrist  
    • FoosMaster:

      The point he was making my friend is this. If someone means to do you or your family harm the Police will "NOT" be able to get there in time to stop them. I am not sure if you are a Parent but if you are then you are the one "PRIMARILY" charged with keeping your Family safe. My Daughter has a Tee-Shirt that reads "At home my DADDY is the First Responder!" I KNOW in a pinch I can not count on the Cops to get there BEFORE something terrible happens.

    • 4 months ago
  • FoosMaster
    • +2
      FoosMaster  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      Not everyone wants a gun or is even capable of using one in a safe manner so telling everyone that they Need a gun because the police can't help you is just FEAR MONGERING that the gun lobby Gladly lets gun lovers push.
      Nobody thinks that the police can solve Everything that happens and the Vast majority understand the limitations of the police and do not expect to be completely safe at all times. That’s just LIFE. Get used to it.

    • 4 months ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +1
      Radical_Centrist  
    • FoosMaster:

      The Sheriff was "VERY" clear that if you intended to get a Gun then you "NEED" to take a course to learn how to use it. I teach on a voluntary basis both Basic Tactical shooting and Gun Safety Classes. I would NEVER advise a person to buy a Gun if they did not intend to become proficient in it's use.

    • 4 months ago
  • FoosMaster
    • +2
      FoosMaster  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      That is a good thing that you would not encourage someone that really is not capable of using a gun responsibly. Thanks for that. We need more sensible people like you my friend but the sad fact is that their are too many who would push someone into using a gun that really has no business having one in the first place. You know the type I am talking about. But that does not change my mind about wanting restrictions on weapons of war, stopping the sale of extended magazines and universal background checks.

    • 4 months ago
  • puzyboi
  • puzyboi
  • puzyboi
  • puzyboi
  • FoosMaster
    • +1
      FoosMaster  
    • puzyboi:

      And I support your right to defend your family with a gun as long as it is not a weapon of war or an extended magazine And as long as you can pass a universal backgroung check.

    • 4 months ago
  • puzyboi
  • tverdell
  • MSII
    • +3
      MSII  
    • FoosMaster:

      You hit the nail on the head! According to right-wing dogma, back to the law-of-the-jungle, kill or be killed! The return to those by-gone days of the "wild" west! Every "real" man can stand like John Wayne! right-wingers are drunk on their own insani-tea.

    • 4 months ago
  • MSII
  • Radical_Centrist
  • Culdee
    • -2
      Culdee  

    • Why all the hate for speaking his honest opinion concerning officer response time?

      Nothing is worse then telling people "We got your back" and then show up to a crime scene too late to make a difference. If this sheriff is providing his honest, objective opinion, than that is an exercise in good judgement. He is empowering citizens to make a self-informed judgement as to their own safety.

    • 4 months ago
  • EdJoyProductions
    • +4
      EdJoyProductions  
    • Culdee:

      That was an irresponsible public response to cuts in manpower. It causes undue paranoia.

      And hate? No. I have no hate for the fact if he believes that the police force is cut dangerously low, I understand his concerns but they need to be handled internally.

    • 4 months ago
  • Culdee
    • -2
      Culdee  
    • EdJoyProductions:

      " I understand his concerns but they need to be handled internally."

      But isn't all the "internal" stuff what causes people to distrust the government so much? In my experience, people just want our officials to be honest.

      Paranoia? Probably yes, but only temporarily.

    • 4 months ago
  • EdJoyProductions
    • +2
      EdJoyProductions  
    • Culdee:

      Honesty is not a thing that the government is particularly adept at. This little outburst will probably not go without some kind of disciplinary action against Mr. Clark. I like the honesty. I do not like the implied threat.

    • 4 months ago
  • puzyboi
  • Radical_Centrist
    • 0
      Radical_Centrist  
    • EdJoyProductions:

      Even in agencies where they are at full capacity there is not going to be a Cop at every corner. Where I live the average response time for a police officer for an Emergency is around 4 minutes. That is MUCH better than the national average but a LOT of bad stuff can still happen in 4 minutes.

    • 4 months ago
  • EdJoyProductions
  • EdJoyProductions
    • +2
      EdJoyProductions  

    • Fine example of an amazing lack of good judgement. This is the kind of message that just feeds into the paranoid frenzy that is distracting people from real problems that are facing the United States.

    • 4 months ago
  • Leen61
  • EdJoyProductions
  • Leen61
  • puzyboi
  • MSII
  • MSII
  • Radical_Centrist
    • -1
      Radical_Centrist  
    • MSII:

      What is crazy about a Sheriff being HONEST and saying if a bad guy breaks in your house in the Middle of the night we are "NOT" going to be able to get there in time to save you. You have three Choices Beg the bad guy for mercy, Hide under your bed until we get there and HOPE you are not discovered or DEFEND yourself UNTIL we get there?

    • 4 months ago
  • puzyboi
more from Community:
from the community

top videos