Says Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. in a new radio ad (which you can play here).
Predictable pushback. From the office of Tom Barrett (the Mayor of Milwaukee who challenged Gov. Scott Walker in the recall election and lost):
"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie."And from Jeri Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort:
"What (Clarke's) talking about is this amped up version of vigilantism.... I don't know what his motivations are for doing this. But I do know what he's calling for is dangerous and irresponsible and he should be out there saying this is a mistake."
Posts
93 comments:
Why is self-defense so outrageous?
As an arthritic midlife female who lives alone, with a police department almost half an hour away, I am already on board with this plan.
"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie."
Has Mayor Dipshit even seen a Dirty Harry movie? Does he even know why Harry Callahan is nick-named "Dirty Harry"? Sheesh.
He's acknowledging that, when seconds count, law enforcement is only ten minutes away, after you get through to dispatch.
The chief of police in the City of Milwaukee under Mayor Barrett, on the otehr hand, calls city cops his "troops" and thinks they are the only ones who should be armed.
I doubt there is a bigger difference in approach to self defense between top law enforcement officers in any county/big city in America than here in Milwaukee.
"What (Clarke's) talking about is this amped up version of vigilantism.
Didn't you violent, right-wing nutjobs get the memo?
Self-defense is vigilantism now!
We are just so far out of the loop, it's a schanda, I tell ya!
Milwaukee, hmmm, the same Milwaukee who rushed signing the teachers' union contract?
Less money for police, more money for teachers insurance?
Why is self-defense so outrageous?
Because if you start taking care of your basic safety, maybe you'll start to question why the government should take care of every little thing in your life. We can't have that.
The guns!!!...THE GUNS!!!!!
apologies to Apocalypse Now
Any person that doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself has enough money to hire their own security...with guns...(or assigns it to themselves for life)
Just ask our president.
Or any member of the NY media.
Fuck you R. President.
come take 'em.
The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense.
So if you shoot someone who's about to shoot you, you're Dirty Harry now? It's like they really do have a Death Wish.
So self-defense is now an "amped up version of vigilantism?"
Every person who fails to take steps to defend themselves and then is raped or murdered in his or her own home should be on Jeri Bonavia's conscience.
If she has one.
I want the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort to demonstrate some real progress, not just effort. Any loser NGO can say, "Hey, we make an effort."
It's such great advice! On the advice of a local pol, I took beginning and intermediate shooting, then started practicing with their and competing in meets.
The safety regime you must go through *every* time you handle a gun is invaluable to your self confidence handling a weapon.
It would be nice to hear a San Diego law enforcement official say something like that.
Eh, at least we have nice weather. Not today, but usually.
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. rocks and speaks the truth. If the Mayor disagrees he should send all personal security for government employees out into taxpayer neighborhoods.
"Your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport. I need you in the game."
A compromise between the two sides would be ordinary citizens become benchwarmers.
Clark is the only Democrat I vote for.
Vigilantism means going out on the streets and hunting down criminals. When the criminals come to you it is rightly called "self defense". If these people (Bonavia, et al.) could distinguish between public and private they wouldn't get themselves so confused.
kentuckyliz said...
Why is self-defense so outrageous?
As an arthritic midlife female who lives alone, with a police department almost half an hour away, I am already on board with this plan.
"When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away..."
Self-defense should be illegal because it reduces the chance you'll die when attacked, and that just increases our total health care costs.
Life is cheap, but death is free.
Maybe guns should be stored in bedrooms, that way we can say stay out of my bedroom.
He's on the wrong side of history.
We need to get guns off the streets not more of them.
This is insane. There is absolutely no place for firearms in modern society, far less assault weapons.
Sometimes I experience depression
Hey, yeah! If I marry my pistol, will they leave me the fuck alone?
Same thing as Benghazi... "Hello, we are being overrun, we are going to die!" Yeah we will get back to you..."What difference does it make anyhow?"
Liberals rock!!!
Dear Lord, please give the good sheriff the resolve to resist the temptation to walk back his comments. Amen.
In England, you're not allowed to defend yourself, except with an umbrella, briefcase or bag. They tell you to yell, "Call the police!" instead of "Help!". You're not allowed to go to someone's defense.
Well Tom and Jeri, just tell us your suggestion that's better. We're listening. Go ahead, make a fool of yourself serving us some pablum.
There is no shortage of embarrassing RWNJ's from Wisconsin.
He's running for something.
It's a good start.
Harry Brown is the future that Mayor Tom Barrett wants for Milwaukee.
In the 60's, we had volunteer firemen supplementing the regular department. Out in Middleton, WI, the siren's blare would awaken a neighbor, day or night, who jumped in his car and raced to the call. I heard this for years growing up. My bedroom window was next to their driveway.
It's not unreasonable nor retro to expect more community involvement in police and fire. After all, the professionals are the ones who priced themselves so high.
At least he didn't point his finger at someone and say "pow!"
There should be two sets of laws and taxes. One set written by and for republicans and one set written by and for Democrats. Every two years, you get to determine which ones you want to live under.
Why not? We're headed that way with Sharia.
I see that Stephen King has now weighed on gun control with a 99 cent essay you can buy on Kindle (please go through Professor Althouse's portal). After learning that King chose to refer to guns purchased for the serious business of self-defense as "dangerous toys," I can't be bothered to spend even 99 cents on his rantings.
Those folks would fit well in England where the homeowner is not allowed to defend his home. He must retreat, even if he is obliged to flee and leave criminals in possession.
That roaring sound in St Martin's churchyard near Woodstock, is Churchill spinning in his grave.
@garage, do you really agree with Jeri Bonavia? Because I seem to recall that in your comments on another thread a couple days ago you said that you would defend your own home with a shotgun and handgun. Have you changed your mind about defending yourself and your family after reading what Tom Barrett and Jeri Bonavia have written?
Or perhaps you are a closet RWNJ yourself?
The proles cannot be trusted.
My take on self defense: It IS a pistol in my pocket, and I'm not happy to see you.
Chip Ahoy "he is on the wrong side of history"
Doubtful, but clearly on the side of survival.
Last summer I lived about a 1/2 a mile from a police station. My ADT alarm sensed an intruder while I was away. The cops showed up about 2 1/2 hours after the report and after I got home. I swept the house by myself and again with the cops. It was a very disconcerting event.
As much as I admire the work law enforcement does, they cannot be every where all the time.
Chips... the wrong side of history is where the sheeples surrender to the will and nannyism of the government.
...WAVE is nothing more than a gun control political front, and is run by anti-gun Jeri Bonavia, who makes about $98,000 a year just in salary (doesn't include benefits) as the director, according to WAVE's 2010 990 form. And sadly, their actions do nothing to actually reduce violence. There is even an "anti WAVE" page on facebook whose goal is to expose the truth about WAVE's agenda, and debunk the lies. In my opinion, based upon the amount of political activity they do, there should be some scrutiny by the IRS about their non-profit status. The lesson here is that far too often in politics today, good intentions are used as a ruse for a political agenda. And WAVE is no exception.
http://brookfield-wi.patch.com/blog_posts/wisconsin-anti-violence-effort-wave-its-about-politics-not-violence?logout=true
Well, that's honest. And, yes, the city is short of money for police officers because it is overpaying teachers. But not only that. The city lays off police ahead of less vital workers to make the citizens call for raising taxes. And the city won't use older citizens who have retired on city pensions for the less vital police duties. It isn't about the citizens any more. It isn't about finding a way to get the job done. What difference does that make?
It's about pandering to an ideology which is more concerned about the rights of the Taliban than the rights of Americans.
Given the implosion of many local and state pension plans, any fiscal responsible politician should be gently persuading all law-abiding people to start getting used to protecting themselves and their neighbors since there won't be much money left for police.
They should also start encouraging more home-schooling and tutoring since there won't be much money left for teachers.
Taxpayers will be providing more of the services themselves while paying taxes to fund the underfunded retirements.
@Big Mike
Surely you are not suggesting that a flaming liberal retard wants something for himself, and his protected class but nothing for the hoi polloi?
In other words...GM is a fucking hypocrite.
Sherriff Clarke is right: citizens should learn to protect themselves until law enforcement can arrive.
I sometimes listen to a police scanner. The number of times a dispatcher has to repeat a critical call for help until a squad is available can be very eye opening. In busy times, the police simply aren't going to arrive unless shots have already been fired and there are bodies.
Clark is a good guy. He easily wins re-election Tom Barrett once criticized Clarke for calling thugs "thugs". If the stars were properly aligned, Clarke would one day replace Barrett.
@Carnifex, I think garage can speak for himself. I hope he will, indeed, respond to my questions.
Somebody comes up with a reasonable, sensible idea for firearm safety "a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself " in the face of reality and the Lefties throw a hissy fit.
You really want me to believe these idiots won honestly?
JackOfClubs said...
Vigilantism means going out on the streets and hunting down criminals.
No, it's not.
The Committees of Vigilance were formed because duly constituted law enforcement either didn't exist or couldn't (or wouldn't) fulfill its function. Vigilance Committees hanged very few people and those that were had a full trial with access to counsel.
The Lefties scream, "Vigilante!", because they know most people don't even know what it means.
@Michael Haz, the truly eye-opening thing about Sandy Hook was that it apparently took the police 20 minutes to arrive at the elementary school even though the call was shots fired at an elementary school, and even though the police substation was only 2.3 miles away.
If there's a break-in at your house, garage, why would you expect the police to respond faster than that?
Vigilantism? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
I cannot take someone like that seriously. Maybe I am not supposed to, perhaps it is just liberal theater in order to get more of Soros' money.
Trey
If there's a break-in at your house, garage, why would you expect the police to respond faster than that?
Nobody is saying that, or was saying that before the crushing stupidity of Clarke's remarks. Honestly, the Republicans in the state have to be among the stupidest anywhere.
"you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family"
We are all cowering victims now if "protect yourself and your family" is vigilantism.
Wonder if the good Mayor has taxpayers funded gun toting vigilantes protecting him 24/7 so he doesn't have to do the dirty work himself?
"If there's a break-in at your house, garage, why would you expect the police to respond faster than that?"
He's a self-hating RWNJ in the closet.
"Honestly, the Republicans in the state have to be among the stupidest anywhere."
Not as stupid as the sitting ducks who are unable to protect themselves.
Note to garage - Sherriff Clarke is a Democrat.
Maybe the sheriff's motivation is concern for the survival of law abiding citizens in his jurisdiction. Why is something that elementary and decent "controversial?"
@garage, what's stupid about Clarke's remarks? Do you have a problem with people taking training in safe firearms handling and storage? Do you disagree with Clarke's contention that you are on your own until the police get there?
You've said before that you would defend your own house with a shotgun and handgun. Tell us all whether Tom Barrett's response to Clarke is causing you to rethink that position?
Garage, you know he's right, and you agree with him, so why shouldn't he say it? It's the most responsible thing the man could say while still telling the truth. Or should he just keep it to himself.
Honestly, the Republicans in the state have to be among the stupidest anywhere.
As a patriotic Californian I take offense at the suggestion that *anyone* has a dumber Republican Party than us.
kentuckyliz said...
Why is self-defense so outrageous?
As an arthritic midlife female who lives alone, with a police department almost half an hour away, I am already on board with this plan.
Self-defense is only outrageous to the leftist because they don't want you doing for yourself. They want the state to either do it for you, or at the very minimum, regulate you to the point that doing it for yourself isn't worth it, which puts the onus on them to do it for you.
Isn't Dirty Harry the good guy who saves lives and gets the bad guys while pissing off the spineless corrupt officials who disagree with his efforts? Damned good call, Tom. Exactly the way I see it too.
He does frqacture the law, on occasion, but we're none of us perfect.
There actually IS one aspect of Clarke's statement that is obnoxious, and that is the implication that "calling 911 and waiting" was a good option BEFORE officers were "laid off and furloughed".
@garage, what's stupid about Clarke's remarks?
Among other things, Clarke's department doesn't even jurisdiction for law enforcement for most of the area where this ad aired. Not many people would call the sheriffs dept anyway if there is a life threatening situation.
Clarke is publicly ripping Chris Abele because he is still bitter over budget cuts to his department. That's what the ad is all about. He did the same thing when he dialed back involvement with security for a POTUS visit.
Forget Steven King. Check out David Mamet's essay in the latest on-line Newsweek.
Forget Steven King. Check out David Mamet's essay in the latest on-line Newsweek.
The police were minutes away when Mayor Barrett tried to stop a woman from getting assaulted.
As an elder rural single woman I have been MY OWN FIRST RESPONDER for years. It's just a fact of life. I listen to the ignorance on guns and self defense and am just happy these people are not my neighbors. I'd hate to respond and intervene in their suicide by crime perp plan.
He's on the wrong side of history.
We need to get guns off the streets not more of them.
This is insane. There is absolutely no place for firearms in modern society, far less assault weapons.
I think that you are likely to find just the opposite, that you are the one on the wrong side of history. We shall see.
I will suggest though that you are making the classic mistake made by liberals on this subject, in not distinguishing between legal and illegal guns, and between law abiding civilians and criminals. There is no evidence whatsoever that disarming law abiding citizens will make everyone safer, and plenty of reason to believe just the opposite.
And, it came out today, that the intent of the gun grabbing legislation is to get guns out of those inner cities with significant violence problems - where maybe 10% of the population live (and likely below 1% of the land mass of this country). We are talking some half or so of all murders occurring in a small part of this country. And, the goal is to disarm everyone so that this small part of the country can have fewer guns in the hands of criminals. Obviously silly, in view of the 300 million plus guns already in this country, along with the ease of smuggling them into the country, and into these high crime urban areas.
And, note that the real cause of the violence in those violent enclaves is better called a "bastardy" problem than a gun problem. Thanks to progressive social engineering, started by LBJ and his War on Poverty, it is relatively rare for males to be properly raised by their fathers in these violent enclaves, and, as a result, are never properly socialized.
Finally, the "assault weapon" slam there is further evidence of your disconnect from reality. What percentage of murders every year are committed using semiautomatic rifles (regardless of magazine capacity, etc.)? It is minuscule in the scheme of things. Rather, handguns are, by far, the preferred weapon for the commission of murder, for the simple reason that they are much easier to conceal.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and my sister live in the same neighborhood. Because of that, I know that two Milwaukee Police Department squads are parked near the Mayor's home every night, all night, so the police can be there in an instant if they are needed.
The remaining citizens of Milwaukee don't have that luxury of immediate response.
The use of the term "assault weapons" is done repeatedly by those who know nothing about guns and gun laws. I'll quote from David Mamet's essay:
"An assault weapon is that which used to be called a “submachine gun.” That is, a handheld long gun that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down.
These have been illegal in private hands (barring those collectors who have passed the stringent scrutiny of the Federal Government) since 1934. Outside these few legal possessors, there are none in private hands. They may be found in the hands of criminals."
Assault weapons are already illegal. Got that? They have been for nearly eighty years.
Passing another law to make assault weapons illegal is like passing a law that makes it against the law to commit a crime.
Among other things, Clarke's department doesn't even jurisdiction for law enforcement for most of the area where this ad aired.
Your answer is kind of a non sequitor, garage. Irrespective of whether Clarke had a political reason for saying what he said, does that mean you disagree with what he said? Do you believe that the police will respond in time to a home invasion at your house? Or do you concede that it is up to the homeowner to defend himself or herself until they arrive?
The bizarre and extreme reactions from the Democratic usual suspects is absolutely hilarious.
Freeman,
No Death Wish; they just think they're Hot Shots.
Chip Ahoy said...
He's on the wrong side of history.
We need to get guns off the streets not more of them.
This is insane. There is absolutely no place for firearms in modern society, far less assault weapons.
Sometimes I experience depression
you should be depressed, you subhuman mass of refuse. being a typical Leftist, you have no morals and no guts. every human has a God-given right of self-defense. when you lefties take power, first you register weapons, then you confiscate them, then the camps get rolling. I plan on taking a couple of govt stooges with me to Valhalla.
John... I think it was probably sarcasm.
Yes, remember, ladies, you don't want to be a vigilante by defending yourself. Just lie back and think of England.
Or do you concede that it is up to the homeowner to defend himself or herself until they arrive?
Like I said, nobody has suggested otherwise. Nobody.
"Like I said, nobody has suggested otherwise. Nobody."
I thought that was what Barrett and Bonavia were saying.
Clark says... be prepared to defend yourself until the police can get there... and it is explicitly portrayed as frightening and outrageous vigilantism.
You don't have to like Clark, and I noticed the "fundraising" element of the quote, certainly. But you really can't claim that "nobody" is saying that homeowners shouldn't be prepared to defend themselves. It's right up at the top of this page in the quote.
Neither person is accusing Clark of being guilty of budget grandstanding... it's "Dirty Harry" and promoting dangerous "vigilantism."
As a patriotic Californian I take offense at the suggestion that *anyone* has a dumber Republican Party than us.
What Republican Party? All we have anymore is Democrats and Democrat-lites. The RNC should sue to keep them from soiling the Republican brand.
Like I said, nobody has suggested otherwise. Nobody.
Oh, clearly. Because calling it an "amped up version of vigilatism" is in no way, shape or form suggesting that it shouldn't be done.
The idea that there might be people out there who don't consider themselves sheep sure scares Democrats.
Yeah Cunningham, the depression bit was the tipoff.
When seconds count, your call to 9-1-1 will be answered in approximately 15 minutes.
Please stay on the line.
Does Sheriff Clarke have any responsibilities beyond the Interstates, Courthouse, and Jail?
It is not like there is rural or unincorporated areas to speak of, all municipal Police Departments are the first responders.
The Sheriff was never going to respond anyway, as your local PD or Milwaukee PD have jurisdiction.
But great ad, despite the irrelevence.
He's is Wisconsin's Joe Arpaio.
A man has got to know his limitations.
... Harry Callahan, in Magnum Force.
The sherriff is living up to this dictum.
Perhaps this is why the mayor thinks he's auditioning for the part?
Bonavia's last gig was at Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
She's merely an activist--a noisemaker. And a damn good opportunist, too.
Let's just have a Constitutional Amendment to spell it out. You must submit to crime, unless you are an elite, rich, a politician, or a big money donor. Maybe we can wear yellow stars to signify we are victims.
Yeah, that'll pass.
I see DiFi already exempted politicians from her proposed gun control legislation. She must think her life is important.
It is unkind of me to state this, but given a choice between saving her life and that of some random stranger, she loses.
The Milwaukee County Sherriff is part of the Joint Crime Task Force, and as such does drug investigations and arrests, etc. Sherriff's Deputies are often initial responders and back-ups for MPD officers during times of high demand for police services.
The theory is trickle down gun control. Take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and it'll eventually trickle down to hardened criminals.
I read a story that supposedly happened in Texas. A man saw someone breaking into his storage shed in the back yard. He called 911 and was told that that were no patrol cars available and to lock his doors and stay inside. He called back and said not to bother because he had already shot the robbers. Within minutes several police cars showed up with lights and sirens blaring. They caught two robbers trying to run away. The police said to the homeowner, “I thought you said you shot them.” The man said, “I thought you said you didn't have any patrol cars available.”
Does Sheriff Clarke have any responsibilities beyond the Interstates, Courthouse, and Jail?
It is not like there is rural or unincorporated areas to speak of, all municipal Police Departments are the first responders.
You omitted mention of the Milwaukee County Park System - The Sheriff deputies patrol the parks and its a huge undertaking given the size of the park system.
To my knowledge the security in the parks is the source of this latest conflict between Clarke and Abele. In the last county budget, Abele - with the support of of Barrett - decided to shift responsibility for patrolling the parks from the sheriff to the Milwaukee Police Dept.
Some of this concern is genuine and some is about protecting turf. Don't forget that around the same time Abele also fired Sue Black, the parks system director under whose leadership the parks won several national awards.
James, you are right ... Yet the hypothetical situation everyone described was needing protection at home, a situation that we both agree the Milw Sheriff is not primarily responsible for.
But let's not let that get in the way of our straw man.
No one mentioned this, so I thought I'd add it in terms of police response time.
According to media reports (e.g., CNN’s timeline), it took the police twenty minutes to arrive at Sandy Hook from the first 911 call, which specifically when out as “Shots Fired.”
Twenty minutes to arrive at a school after a call of "shots fired."
How long would it take them to arrive at your home, or mine?
I need no more convincing than that fact. Armed.
In a similar vein:
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130113/NEWS/301130077/Local-lawmen-against-assault-weapon-ban
Otherwise described as "local lawnmen against assault weapon (sic) ban." (The police chief is a Floridian.)
Another couple LEOs (sheriff, police chief) from a neighboring county,prior to the Newtown attack, recommended in different cases where a home owner defended themselves that people get a firearm and take a class and be prepared.
Sounds like a theme.
Post a Comment