“Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie.” That was the response from Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett’s office upon hearing the sheriff’s latest public service announcement. In fact, Milwaukee County Sheriff Clarke’s message is so radical that it almost doesn’t seem legit. But it is, and it has some Milwaukee officials (and citizens) horrified:
In his latest radio spot, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. tells residents personal safety isn’t a spectator sport anymore, and “I need you in the game.”
“With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option,” Clarke intones.
“You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back.”
Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm “so you can defend yourself until we get there.”
“You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?”
Click here to listen Sheriff Clarke’s public service announcement in its entirety.
Understandably, some Milwaukee officials and other law enforcement agencies are concerned by the nature of the ad:
Roy Felber, president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, said the ad sounded to him like a call to vigilantism.
“That doesn’t sound smart,” Felber said. “That’s why society has police officers.”
Instead of promoting vigilantism, Felber said, money should be found to hire more police officers and deputies.
And:
Jeri Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, said she hears “over and over” from most law enforcement officials that the community should work to “take more guns off the streets, not add more.”
“What (Clarke’s) talking about is this amped up version of vigilantism,” Bonavia said. “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.”
Sheriff Clarke’s radio spot already aired on Mark Belling’s radio show on Thursday, and it was posted to the department website today, according to Sheriff Clarke’s spokeswoman.
She said she did not know where else or how often the spot would be broadcast, or how much the department spent to air it.
County Executive Chris Abele summed up the situation best:
“I think it’s irresponsible and it doesn’t help public safety to tell the public there’s some kind of imminent danger that they need to go buy guns,” Abele said. “Essentially, you’ve got a (public service announcement) that’s recommending people need to go buy guns because they can’t rely on the response they’ll get from 911. I’m here to tell you, we have phenomenal police departments.”
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke
When I read about this in jsonline, I thought maybe this was by someone out to get Clarke. But as it appears to be a true statement by him, then this is one of the most irresponsible statements I have ever heard from a government official – and that’s saying a lot given the garbage we have heard over the past couple of years. If he does not retract this, is there any recourse to remove him from office or at least an official reprimand?
I’ve been watching the tax burden shift from the rich and the corporate to the middle class since the days of Tommy Thompson. Now Sheriff Clarke is telling taxpayers not to expect the services they are paying for. I know a series of irresponsible County Executives have caused budget problems in Mke County but when are taxpayers going to demand something for their dollar? The answer is responsible, responsive government, not service cuts.
To the site moderator: This is NOT a troll post, it’s a serious reply to Dairy Queen…to hold otherwise is to ignore the truth.
To Dairy Queen:
Your statement, “Sheriff Clark is telling taxpayers not to expect the services they’re paying for”, is an obnoxious spinning of the facts into something they’re not. Sheriff Clarke never told anyone not to expect any services they’re paying for: No one is paying for personal around-the-clock police protection, but that’s clearly the level of service you’re demanding.
Here are some things you and all of your friends here need to get your liberal heads around:
1) The police can’t possibly be everywhere at once. In fact, they can’t be ANYWHERE else at any given moment other than where they happen to be at that moment. And I’ll guarantee you, if there’s a criminal in your house it’s at least partly because there ISN’T a cop around. To expect a cop to be immediately (and I mean IMMEDIATELY) available when you need him is to be living in a dream world, because it CAN’T happen.
2) As a direct consequence of point #1 above, and an unavoidable corollary to same, the police are NOT there when you need them…when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
3) The police are NOT responsible for your personal safety…NO ONE is, except you. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the police have no obligation to protect an individual in any case, unless that individual is in their custody.
4) When (and if) the police do finally get there, they will NEVER put any of their officers in harm’s way. They will NOT go into your house until it’s safe for them to do so.
When someone (or everyone) in your family is dead because the police weren’t there to stop someone who has broken into your house while you were sleeping (because the police CAN’T be there at the precise moment someone is breaking into your house, unless by dumb luck they happen to be driving by at that instant and catch the perp in the act), who are you going to point a finger at to cast blame (because looking to cast blame is what you liberals do so well)? You say “the answer is responsible, responsive government”. I have some sobering news for you and all your liberal pals…the government’s job is NOT to take care of you. Go ahead, ask the Supreme Court if I’m right.
So when your home is violated while you’re sleeping, perhaps you should point a finger at YOURSELF, for failing to have close at hand and ready for immediate use, an effective means of personal self defense. Unless you think putting a big sign in your front yard that says “NOTICE: No Dangerous Weapons Permitted On This Property!” will suffice.
So Roy Felber’s off-the-wall comments about how Clarke “doesn’t sound smart”, doesn’t sound very smart. And Jeri Bonavia’s inflammatory remarks about Sheriff Clarke’s statements being “dangerous and irresponsible” and “amped up vigilantism” are nothing more than a blatant attempt to create divisiveness, which is the LAST thing anyone needs, but is nevertheless precisely what you guys are hell-bent on expending the most resources on.
Sheriff Clarke got it right, and you guys have it all wrong, but you’re too busy breeding divisiveness to care about anything else.
Hi Mark,
The reason I have to chosen to restrict comments on my site is not to ignore or block “truth,” but to block those who are unwilling or unable to treat others with basic human respect. If readers want to comment on ideas or disagree, that’s fine. But petty name-calling and comments that lack civility will not be tolerated here.
A lot of people hide behind anonymity online and are unwilling or unable to treat others decently. That’s fine, but they can comment elsewhere, not here at Waukesha Wonk.
Hopefully, that explains my policy on comments/moderation.
Lisa,
Thank you for your reply. The two primary reasons I made the opening statement in my first post are: 1) Your warning at the bottom of the thread that “trolls will be blocked”, and 2) I had replied to a thread in crooksandliars.com (an extreme leftist site) about David Gregory illegally brandishing a high-capacity magazine in a Meet The Press segment, and even posted a link to the D.C municipal law which makes possession of said magazine illegal, and I got banned for violating the “Terms and Conditions” of their website. When I read their T&C, one clause stated that it was a private website, and posters may be banned for posting statements that disagree with the site owner’s position(!). Put simply, if they don’t want to hear what you’re saying, you’re banned.
I had no way of knowing if this site adhered to a similar rule, so that’s why I began my post with the statement I did.
Thank you for being open-minded enough to allow posts that present views other than your own. I enjoy animated and respectful discourse, and would enjoy debating any number of issues with your members here if, as you state, civil & respectful comments are welcomed.
In my original post I signed my real name so there would be no question of who posted what, but my habit is to sign my name as oldjackbob, simply because that’s what everyone has called me for years.
Thanks and best regards,
OJB
OJB,
Thanks for your reply. If I only listened to people who think just like I do, I’d get bored, fast.
You know, another reason for my strict rules on comment moderation has to do with my past experiences. When I blogged over at Blogging Blue, there were people who were sincere about discussing issues with me, and there were those who “trolled” my posts looking for any sort of “gotcha” moment. Those people took pleasure in trying to bring me down. I would never treat people the way that some of those people treated me- like I was less than human. Life’s too short to waste time on people like that, be they liberal or conservative. And I firmly believe that Americans should be able to disagree without being mean and making it personal. We’ve done it before, we can do it again.
Okay, getting off my soap box now…
I’ve gotta run, but I am starting to wonder if Sheriff Clarke’s statements have less to do with his beliefs, and more to do with his ongoing feud with MKE County Exec Chris Abele. If that’s the case, Clarke is playing us all…
Lisa
Hello Waukesha Wonk. Love the sight love the topic.
Couple of things;
1 – Clarke is just stating the obvious. **We can rely on “the system” and/or rely on ourselves for protection. Granted, not the typical law enforcement drum we hear beating.
2 – Sounds like Clarke has an axe grinding over in MKE.
3 – MC or OJB, is stating the obvious also. **as above.
4 – All parties agree that person on person (gun) violence is unacceptable. The solutions are complex and involve enforcement on one end of the spectrum and prohibition on the other. Whatever the solution(s) are I bet they will be closer to enforcement than prohibition.
Independent guy, thanks for the compliments on my new blog digs. Nice to “see” you here.
1. I have a hard time trusting Sheriff Clarke, in part, because he once said MKE Co. lacked funds to assist with President Obama’s visit, then pulled out all the stops for Mitt Romney here in Waukesha Co. (I was there, I saw it with my own eyes).
Also, because Clarke has said what I consider to be radical things in the past, it’s hard for me to look at his latest statement on its own and give him the benefit of the doubt. So what may be “obvious” to you and OJB is not obvious to me because his statement is, forgive the pun, loaded.
2. I agree that Sheriff Clarke may have an ax to grind, especially considering his past history with County Exec Abele.
3. I guess I can see it from your perspective, when I take Clarke’s statement at face value- from your point of view, it’s only logical that a citizen could defend him/herself until 911 gets there, but I have to take everything else out of the equation to do that, and that’s why I’m unable to agree with you.
4. Yes, this issue is more complex than it appears to be on the surface. But also, to me, kind of simple. Gun regulation is a no-brainer to me.
You know, I grew up with guns in the house. My dad even got a new set of rifles for me when I was born (or so he claimed, I think he just wanted the guns for himself and used my birth as an excuse, lol). But back then, school shootings didn’t happen. Times have changed…we need to change our policies to fit the times.
The funny thing is about Clarke’s statements is that any minority will tell you that the police were never to be trusted to begin with. A little off topic, I know. But I think that’s something that many conservatives don’t want to talk or even consider because then they won’t have convenient scapegoats to demonize. After all they’re often protecting themselves from those brown/black people, right?
I really don’t see the big deal about the gun control debate, it’s not going to take any guns away, just going to make sure there are background checks and you know – actual gun control. Example: In Sweden the law doesn’t ban any specific firearms or weapons, it merely states the requirements to own one. Regulation. Furthermore, Nordic countries has a high rate of gun ownership. And hey, they have a lower crime rate than us.
Fancy that.
So yes, I don’t see anything wrong with regulation.
Unless you know, these people are worried about not actually qualifying. The horror.
That being said, Clarke’s prior ignorant statements about Israel in the past prove to me to be a bunch of nonsense and how out of touch he really is in the situation, since Israel in fact has the opposite of the United States policy in gun control. They are a militarized society, but what many of these people don’t get is that they have strict gun laws.
You can’t give out guns like candy which is what this country is doing. Most gun nuts I noticed want their cake and to eat it too.
Oh, and in addition that.
Real talk on why he is being foolish.
Well Lisa, I have to admit … as a dyed-in-the-wool anti-liberal, so far I’m impressed with the civility of the posters on your blog site, and especially with the professionalism of yourself.
Thanks for letting me post here, I won’t abuse the privilege.
OJB
Thank you, OJB.