HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Milwaukee Sheriff Calls f...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:50 PM

Milwaukee Sheriff Calls for Citizens to Arms Themselves, 911 Sometimes Not a Good Option.

http://www.postcrescent.com/viewart/20130126/APC0101/301260413/
Milwaukee sheriff urges residents to get gun training, says simply calling 911 and waiting not best option


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.”

More at link


I have been reading similar stories from other parts of the nation of law enforcement officials reminding people that they are responsible for their own defense until the cops arrive. It seems to be a minor trend.

30 replies, 2561 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Milwaukee Sheriff Calls for Citizens to Arms Themselves, 911 Sometimes Not a Good Option. (Original post)
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 OP
pepperbear Jan 2013 #1
gejohnston Jan 2013 #3
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #2
School guard Jan 2013 #4
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #6
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #7
iiibbb Jan 2013 #8
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #11
iiibbb Jan 2013 #13
hack89 Jan 2013 #19
sylvi Jan 2013 #14
Clames Jan 2013 #9
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #10
Clames Jan 2013 #12
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #20
Clames Jan 2013 #23
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #24
Clames Jan 2013 #25
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #26
tjnite Feb 2013 #30
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #5
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #15
iiibbb Jan 2013 #16
jeepnstein Jan 2013 #17
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #21
iiibbb Jan 2013 #22
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #18
kudzu22 Jan 2013 #27
SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #28
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #29

Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:55 PM

1. prelude to massive privatization of law enforcement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pepperbear (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:06 PM

3. doesn't seem to be

more like other places where revenue losses can't pay for it. For years Nevada has been able to pay for schools and everything by taxing gamblers, like Florida does tourists. Once Vegas lost its monopoly to Atlantic City and reservations, the lost money either has to be made up for or cut services. There are pragmatists and those who want it all for free. Not saying that is Milwaukee's or Oakland's problem specifically. Sometimes it isn't the amount of money, just how it is spent. I noticed a lot of that in the military. If you took the amount that the Air Force spends on base beautification contests, seriously, or close one base in Germany, and used it for aid to cities we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:58 PM

2. He is a lying piece of teabagging shit.

"To serve and protect", asshole.

Also, there have been NO furloughs or layoffs. He's making that up and won't respond to media inquiries on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:14 PM

4. Police have neither the ability (for obvious reasons) nor the obligation (for legal ones) to

 

"protect" individual citizens, regardless of what they have painted on their cars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to School guard (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:18 PM

6. David Clarke is a lying piece of teabagging shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to School guard (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:31 PM

7. So I've heard. But we are paying them to at least make an effort. We aren't

paying them to stand back and tell us to protect our own damned selves because they can't see fit to try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:56 PM

8. Courts have established it's not their responsibility to protect individuals

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:18 PM

11. Their employment contract establishes that they not sit on their asses

and refuse to lift a finger to prevent crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:26 PM

13. Correct... they will eventually arrive to investigate the murder of an individual...

 

... but they had no obligation to protect that individual unless they happened across the specific event... which happens how often?

No matter... we know they fail to protect individuals for 15,000 gun related homicides a year.


When I was the victim of a contact crime it took an hour to actually be face to face with a deputy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:21 AM

19. That doesn't mean they will get there in time to prevent a violent crime from occurring. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:35 PM

14. Where does it say

 

Where does it say they're "standing back...because they can't see fit to try."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:39 PM

9. No layoffs huh?

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/two-sheriffs-captains-win-first-step-in-getting-jobs-back-j43nsub-136979098.html

The battle over layoffs to the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department spilled over into the courtroom Tuesday, with the county suing to force Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. to drop 27 deputies.

...

Corporation Counsel Kimberly Walker said Clarke was putting county taxpayers at risk by continuing to deploy the 27 deputies who should have lost their jobs Dec. 31. Anyone issued a speeding ticket or arrested could argue that action was invalid because the laid-off deputies no longer work for the county, she said.


...
Some $13 million in cuts to the sheriff's budget for this year were approved by Abele and the board as a key budget-balancing measure. The budget limited layoffs to 61 deputies; retirements have trimmed the total number of layoffs to 27.

The issue could turn on the question of whether the deputy jobs were explicitly abolished in the 2012 budget, or just the funding - something that's subject to differing interpretations. If they weren't abolished, that could bolster Clarke's action delaying the layoffs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:47 PM

10. those were a year ago and no furloughs. at all.

He's still a liberal bashing teabagging, won't protect POTUS piece of shit. This was far from the first stupid thing to fall out of his piece of shit piehole. He has a long history of being an asshole with sick visions of grandeur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:20 PM

12. None of that changes the fact that there are still fewer LEO's available now...

 

...than there used to be. It's happening all over the country too so in the big picture he's right on this one. First thing I'd do is call 9-1-1 if I could but I'd have my shotgun at hand and ready too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:48 AM

20. more cops under obama than romney

clames: No layoffs huh?

Response to Clames {from} PeaceNikki
10. those were a year ago and no furloughs. at all.


Clames, backpedalling furiously!!: None of that changes the fact that there are still fewer LEO's available now...

Thank goodness obama got elected then.

Mitt Romney shockingly promised to cut jobs for firefighters, police, and teachers if elected.

Go nikki, go nikki, go nikki!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:12 PM

23. More fail from jimmy.

 

You must be pals with Mikey or at least went to the same school


http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2602


Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts growth of only 7% over the next 10 years on the LEO field which is half of what is expected for all occupations on average. Bureau of Justice Statistics show a marked decline in full-time LEO employment when weighted against growth of the population of the US. Keep owning your ignorance jimmy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:50 PM

24. partly truth, partly fiction

You're a trip clames; per kristofferson - A walking contradiction, partly truth, partly fiction...

I noted what romney woulda done about hiring police:2012 campaign - Mitt Romney shockingly promised to cut jobs for firefighters, police, and teachers if elected.
.. and then wrote that we should thank goodness obama got elected, to which clames wrote back:
Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts growth of only 7% over the next 10 years on the LEO field which is half of what is expected for all occupations on average.

Well 7% growth is better than a cutback (I guess), and under romney what would it've been?

Bureau of Justice Statistics show a marked decline in full-time LEO employment when weighted against growth of the population of the US.

pffftt, so law enf didn't grow at the same rate as population growth, maybe the downturn in violent crime rates had to do with it - other factors clames - what you suggest proves nothing (as usual by you).

Keep owning your ignorance jimmy...

.. taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:19 PM

25. Why do you keep bringing up Romney?

 

He's irrelevant which makes everything you post equally if not more irrelevant...

I noted what romney woulda done about hiring police:2012 campaign



Nobody gives a shit except you. Telling, very telling.


pffftt, so law enf didn't grow at the same rate as population growth, maybe the downturn in violent crime rates had to do with it -



That's just a national snapshot of what is expected in the next 10 years and is optimistic at best right now. If you actually knew what you were talking about here - which you obviously have no clue - you'd know that localities have been forced to layoff LEO's or suspend new, desperately needed hiring due to budget constraints.

http://positiveleo.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/impact-cutbacks-force-retreat-in-war-on-meth/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/us/after-deep-police-cuts-sacramento-sees-rise-in-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/28/us/new-jersey-newark-crime/index.html

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121217/METRO/212170340


Keep trying jimmy. Very humorous...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:30 PM

26. what gives

clames: Why do you keep bringing up Romney? Nobody gives a shit except you. Telling, very telling.
He's irrelevant which makes everything you post equally if not more irrelevant...

seconding what clames wrote: Nobody gives a shit except you. Telling, very telling.

clames: That's just a national snapshot of what is expected in the next 10 years and is optimistic at best right now. If you actually knew what you were talking about here - which you obviously have no clue - you'd know that localities have been forced to layoff LEO's or suspend new, desperately needed hiring due to budget constraints.

seconding what clames wrote: Nobody gives a shit except you. Telling, very telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:38 PM

30. Exactly.

 

Call 911 of course and atleast give a SITREP and address. Those that think they shouldnt defend their homes... er... Only otn a baseball bat for defense, probably dont know the average response time for their area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:14 PM

5. It is a simple statement of fact...

It is a long distance phone call for me to call my sheriffs office....It takes them almost an hour to get to where I live...

Also, their are several court cases that point out, that the Police, are under NO DUTY to protect an individual that is NOT under their direct "care".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 09:05 AM

15. honor bound tho, cops are

School guard (1 post) 4. Police have neither the ability (for obvious reasons) nor the obligation (for legal ones) to "protect" individual citizens, regardless of what they have painted on their cars.

mtn man: the Police, are under NO DUTY to protect an individual that is NOT under their direct "care".

True, but you both leave the impression that they can refuse to respond to a reported crime, or cherry pick (ie by race) whom they respond to.
Police are not obligated to respond for pragmatic reasons - if they were able to be sued then victims would willy nilly sue them for any oversight committed, which would clog the court system as well as hamstring the cops by making them appear as witnesses, which would render a far less effective police dept.. Criminals would be instrumental in allowing this to happen btw, suing police depts for trivial or superficial reasons..
The police depts are not angels all the times, but this is one policy which needs to be.

On the other hand, it's sorta tacit most all cops are honor bound to respond, for if the cops did indeed refuse to respond to reported crimes they would either be fired, sanctioned, or called cowards.
That cops respond to reported crime is de facto, the 'not obligated' rule just a necessary legal imposition which doesn't mean they can cherry pick which crime to show up to.
.. false alarms too, why 911 screens needed.

Hmmm, 'school guard' with one post, on a gunboard; why am I inclined to think he/she, is pro gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 10:20 AM

16. It's not the refusal... it's the time it takes to respond to some calls.

 

I think Mt alludes to the fact that the police are under no obligation to station an officer outside of an individuals home to protect them even if they have a direct threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:17 AM

17. This is it.

I've had to run hot to a call that might be forty or fifty miles away. Even under lights and siren with dry pavement that can take LOTS of time. You have to consider crossing intersections where people don't pay attention to the siren, people who slow down and won't let you around on two lane roads, and all sorts of general mayhem. The first rule of running hot to a call is that you have to actually make it to your destination. We generally won't run over 70 even with the lights on. If your car is wadded up in a tree, or worse you've caused an injury accident, then you're just no good at all to anyone.

Somehow we live in this dream world where bad things never happen, help is always a few seconds away, and we don't need to take care of ourselves. I've seen some pretty upset people when they realize this isn't the way the world works. It isn't like TV and if your local police drove like Jack Bauer, well, nobody would be terribly impressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:59 AM

21. to be, or not to be, iiibbb

iiibbb: It's not the refusal... it's the time it takes to respond to some calls.

Read much? mt man clearly separated the two concepts (refusing & response times) when he used the word 'also' in his post, reposted below:

mtn man: It is a long distance phone call for me to call my sheriffs office....It takes them almost an hour to get to where I live...

Also, their are several court cases that point out, that the Police, are under NO DUTY to protect an individual that is NOT under their direct "care".Sic semper tyrannis


iiibbb: I think Mt alludes to the fact that the police are under no obligation to station an officer outside of an individuals home to protect them even if they have a direct threat.

Read much? that appears to be opposite of what mtn man said: mtn man: the Police, are under NO DUTY to protect an individual that is NOT under their direct "care".

Best get your facts straighter before backslapping your gun buddies.

iiibbb, shakespeare fan? to be or not to be, i i i, be be be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:37 AM

22. So you're both wrong

 

makes no difference to me. The point is made by the Milwaukee sheriff

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:43 AM

18. My

reservation is 6800 square miles in size and quite remote. A fully staffed shift sees 7-8 cops on duty to cover that entire area. If you are really lucky and an officer is close by, you might get a response in 10-15 minutes, but typically it will be 45 minutes or more for them to arrive to a call. Violent crime is rare, but it does happen so it's just a reasonable and prudent thing to be prepared to handle things yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:44 PM

27. Until the LEOs get a transporter from Star Trek

they will never be able to show up in time to prevent a crime. All they can do is try to catch the criminal after the fact, thereby preventing his next crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:08 AM

28. David Clark is more interested in posting officers on the freeway where the

speed limit changes from 65 to 55 (on an interstate highway, really?) virtually everywhere in Milwaukee County with a radar gun than actual public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:12 PM

29. I had a LTE published in the J.S. re Clarke for which I am now being harassed by a pro-gun blogger

through the US mail.

On his blogspot he claims to be a crusader against Islam and the editors of the local papers.

His own revelations of his profile show overlap those of the Sihk temple shooter.

Yet, this guy has a conceal carry permit.

I know that because he's been in the news because he went to court claiming he shouldn't have been charged a fee for that permit.

He lost that appeal.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread