01-28-2013 04:18 PM
January 28, 2013, 12:40 p.m.
Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. has a message for residents in his jurisdiction: You can't rely on him anymore. You need to arm yourself.
On Friday, the nominally Democratic sheriff issued a recorded public safety announcement on the radio and on the Web that encouraged residents to take their lives into their own hands.
Here's the full transcript:
"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."
Crime is relatively rare in Clarke's jurisdiction: In 2010, the Sheriff's Department reported two burglaries, nine robberies and zero murders. (Preliminary data from 2012 were not available, and it's not clear if the department submitted its crime statistics to the FBI for 2011.)
Also rare are justifiable homicides in the U.S.: About 260 private citizens lawfully killed someone committing a felony in 2011, or less than one case per every 1 million people in the nation.
Clarke's announcement has nonetheless tapped into a raw current in American politics over the role guns play in a civil society, which has occasioned some slightly less-than-civil discourse.
"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie," Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's office said in a statement.
That remark drew this retort from Clarke: "Several years ago, a tire-iron-wielding suspect beat Mayor Tom Barrett to within inches of his life. I would think that he would be 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."
Barrett was calling 911 to report a fight when the suspect batted the phone out of his hand and began to beat him, according to a police report; the suspect, Anthony Peters, claimed to have a gun, but didn't.
Clarke has been Milwaukee County's sheriff since 2002 and, running as a Democrat, easily rolled to reelection. His remarks, however, have earned him praise among conservatives, and he has occasionally flirted with the tea party.
In the days after the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Clarke again raised the proverbial call to arms in an Op-Ed article on a tea party website.
In those remarks, Clarke said gun control advocates were "sheep" and called for "an armed tactical trained officer or security officer in every school and public place [theaters, malls, etc.] in America."
I like what this guy has to say!
01-28-2013 04:24 PM
Somebody breaks into my home I'll be phoning the cops while I'm cleaning them off the wall.
01-28-2013 04:47 PM
Daryl Flynn wrote:Somebody breaks into my home I'll be phoning the cops while I'm cleaning them off the wall.
01-28-2013 04:49 PM
Hoddy wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:Somebody breaks into my home I'll be phoning the cops while I'm cleaning them off the wall.
Coleman lantern users could have a need for both.
01-28-2013 04:51 PM
fretmess wrote:
Hoddy wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:Somebody breaks into my home I'll be phoning the cops while I'm cleaning them off the wall.
Coleman lantern users could have a need for both.
I have plenty of both!
01-28-2013 05:07 PM
What possible reason would someone in the 'security business' have for spreading fear among his 'customers'?
01-28-2013 05:13 PM
01-28-2013 05:14 PM
gtrjones wrote:What possible reason would someone in the 'security business' have for spreading fear among his 'customers'?
So you're saying democrats are fear mongers...got it.
01-28-2013 05:21 PM
Hoddy wrote:
gtrjones wrote:What possible reason would someone in the 'security business' have for spreading fear among his 'customers'?
So you're saying democrats are fear mongers...got it.
Speaking of bullshit hyperbole...
01-28-2013 05:29 PM
pink freud wrote:
Political grandstanding instead of statistically valid advice, given that with his jurisdiction's reported crimes a single officer could take care of it all.
I wish both sides of this debate would cut out the bullshit hyperbole.
statistically the cops wont be there when u need them...and if the bay guy is in your home or within reach of you...they have already got the advantage. Cops take reports and gather evidence after the crime has occcured.
this officer elequently highlights the TRUTH....YOU ARE RESPONSiBLE for you and your familes safety.
01-28-2013 05:34 PM
Principles of Personal Defense -- Jeff Cooper
read it, pdf available
VHT DEATH SQUAD
01-28-2013 05:36 PM
Davo17 wrote:
pink freud wrote:
Political grandstanding instead of statistically valid advice, given that with his jurisdiction's reported crimes a single officer could take care of it all.
I wish both sides of this debate would cut out the bullshit hyperbole.statistically the cops wont be there when u need them...and if the bay guy is in your home or within reach of you...they have already got the advantage. Cops take reports and gather evidence after the crime has occcured.
this officer elequently highlights the TRUTH....YOU ARE RESPONSiBLE for you and your familes safety.
Sorry, but what you are (attempting, I assume, as you have horrible spelling/grammar) saying doesn't hold true with the logic presented by this sherrif. He is claiming due to a shortage of police/budget that they will no longer be able to protect people should the need arise. Logically this means that he claims that when there were/are more police they can respond to 911 calls in a more timely manner. This runs counter to your claim in which the amount of police is irrelevant to response time.
Let us pretend that your claim is true. What we have here then is a veiled attempt to frighten people into providing more funding for his department, otherwise he would have never mentioned his workforce or budget at all.
Either way you look at it, this sherrif is being disingenuous in some manner.
01-28-2013 05:36 PM
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used against someone in the home than to defend those within the home.
MORON LABIA ![]()
"Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them."- Gabrielle Giffords
01-28-2013 06:05 PM
pink freud wrote:
Davo17 wrote:
pink freud wrote:
Political grandstanding instead of statistically valid advice, given that with his jurisdiction's reported crimes a single officer could take care of it all.
I wish both sides of this debate would cut out the bullshit hyperbole.statistically the cops wont be there when u need them...and if the bay guy is in your home or within reach of you...they have already got the advantage. Cops take reports and gather evidence after the crime has occcured.
this officer elequently highlights the TRUTH....YOU ARE RESPONSiBLE for you and your familes safety.
Sorry, but what you are (attempting, I assume, as you have horrible spelling/grammar) saying doesn't hold true with the logic presented by this sherrif. He is claiming due to a shortage of police/budget that they will no longer be able to protect people should the need arise. Logically this means that he claims that when there were/are more police they can respond to 911 calls in a more timely manner. This runs counter to your claim in which the amount of police is irrelevant to response time.
Let us pretend that your claim is true. What we have here then is a veiled attempt to frighten people into providing more funding for his department, otherwise he would have never mentioned his workforce or budget at all.
Either way you look at it, this sherrif is being disingenuous in some manner.
hey idiot im a medic and would never claim that the amount of cops, or other emergency services doesnt impact eta. dont put words in my mouth, son.
its interesing that you consider this a threat, but when cities blow money, then take it out of teachers or firefighters funds, in order to make an appeal to emotion, and increase revenue that its ok.
hes right...you are responsible for your self. if you want to count on a cop...you might very well be giving him a description after the crime.
you are confusing a rapid response with the prevention of crime. even with more cops, criminals get to pick the time and place of their crimes...and they dont do it when there are cops nearby.
01-28-2013 06:08 PM
willhaven wrote:A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used against someone in the home than to defend those within the home.
MORON LABIA
once your remove deaths from suicide (which gun bans dont curtail), or drug and gang crime, we have the murder rate of holland.
please post your citations.
01-28-2013 06:10 PM
Davo17 wrote:
pink freud wrote:
Davo17 wrote:
pink freud wrote:
Political grandstanding instead of statistically valid advice, given that with his jurisdiction's reported crimes a single officer could take care of it all.
I wish both sides of this debate would cut out the bullshit hyperbole.statistically the cops wont be there when u need them...and if the bay guy is in your home or within reach of you...they have already got the advantage. Cops take reports and gather evidence after the crime has occcured.
this officer elequently highlights the TRUTH....YOU ARE RESPONSiBLE for you and your familes safety.
Sorry, but what you are (attempting, I assume, as you have horrible spelling/grammar) saying doesn't hold true with the logic presented by this sherrif. He is claiming due to a shortage of police/budget that they will no longer be able to protect people should the need arise. Logically this means that he claims that when there were/are more police they can respond to 911 calls in a more timely manner. This runs counter to your claim in which the amount of police is irrelevant to response time.
Let us pretend that your claim is true. What we have here then is a veiled attempt to frighten people into providing more funding for his department, otherwise he would have never mentioned his workforce or budget at all.
Either way you look at it, this sherrif is being disingenuous in some manner.
hey idiot im a medic and would never claim that the amount of cops, or other emergency services doesnt impact eta. dont put words in my mouth, son.
its interesing that you consider this a threat, but when cities blow money, then take it out of teachers or firefighters funds, in order to make an appeal to emotion, and increase revenue that its ok.
hes right...you are responsible for your self. if you want to count on a cop...you might very well be giving him a description after the crime.
you are confusing a rapid response with the prevention of crime. even with more cops, criminals get to pick the time and place of their crimes...and they dont do it when there are cops nearby.
I'm dealing with the facts as stated. I'm sure your extensive training on making sure blood stays on the inside more than the outside gives you great insight into logic problems, which is what I was talking about. Your status as a medic also doesn't mean you literally know what the fuck you are talking about. Again, it's logic, and you have shown time and again that you are incapable of utilizing it.
01-28-2013 06:16 PM
pink freud wrote:
Davo17 wrote:
pink freud wrote:
Davo17 wrote:
pink freud wrote:
Political grandstanding instead of statistically valid advice, given that with his jurisdiction's reported crimes a single officer could take care of it all.
I wish both sides of this debate would cut out the bullshit hyperbole.statistically the cops wont be there when u need them...and if the bay guy is in your home or within reach of you...they have already got the advantage. Cops take reports and gather evidence after the crime has occcured.
this officer elequently highlights the TRUTH....YOU ARE RESPONSiBLE for you and your familes safety.
Sorry, but what you are (attempting, I assume, as you have horrible spelling/grammar) saying doesn't hold true with the logic presented by this sherrif. He is claiming due to a shortage of police/budget that they will no longer be able to protect people should the need arise. Logically this means that he claims that when there were/are more police they can respond to 911 calls in a more timely manner. This runs counter to your claim in which the amount of police is irrelevant to response time.
Let us pretend that your claim is true. What we have here then is a veiled attempt to frighten people into providing more funding for his department, otherwise he would have never mentioned his workforce or budget at all.
Either way you look at it, this sherrif is being disingenuous in some manner.
hey idiot im a medic and would never claim that the amount of cops, or other emergency services doesnt impact eta. dont put words in my mouth, son.
its interesing that you consider this a threat, but when cities blow money, then take it out of teachers or firefighters funds, in order to make an appeal to emotion, and increase revenue that its ok.
hes right...you are responsible for your self. if you want to count on a cop...you might very well be giving him a description after the crime.
you are confusing a rapid response with the prevention of crime. even with more cops, criminals get to pick the time and place of their crimes...and they dont do it when there are cops nearby.
I'm dealing with the facts as stated. I'm sure your extensive training on making sure blood stays on the inside more than the outside gives you great insight into logic problems, which is what I was talking about. Your status as a medic also doesn't mean you literally know what the fuck you are talking about. Again, it's logic, and you have shown time and again that you are incapable of utilizing it.
son im arguing reality against your theoretical bs.
the real deal vs what you read in new yorker magazine.
do you like apples?
01-28-2013 06:24 PM - edited 01-28-2013 06:24 PM
Davo17 wrote:
willhaven wrote:A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used against someone in the home than to defend those within the home.
MORON LABIA
once your remove deaths from suicide (which gun bans dont curtail), or drug and gang crime, we have the murder rate of holland.
please post your citations.
'Sup, bitch?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann#199
"Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them."- Gabrielle Giffords
01-28-2013 06:34 PM
Hoddy wrote:
fretmess wrote:
Hoddy wrote:
Daryl Flynn wrote:Somebody breaks into my home I'll be phoning the cops while I'm cleaning them off the wall.
Coleman lantern users could have a need for both.
I have plenty of both!
Bet you're some kinda Boy Scout.
01-28-2013 06:38 PM

About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC