Video: Milwaukee County sheriff’s PSA on self-protection

posted at 10:01 am on January 26, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

One rule of thumb when hosting a radio talk show: don’t bring an audio clip on the air “cold,” i.e., without having heard it yourself.  That’s probably especially true when you’re guest-hosting for a good friend and mentor.  However, after Hot Air reader Tim R sent this to me near the end of the first hour of last night’s Hugh Hewitt show, I asked Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson to check it out for hour two as I was wrapping up an interview with John Eastman on the recess-appointment ruling.  In the break, I asked, “Can we use that?”  Duane answered, “Oh, hell yes.”

The sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin has a new public-service announcement on radio on protecting yourself, and it’s causing quite a stir in the community:

In the PSA, Sheriff David Clarke says, “With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared?”

 “You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?”

Sounds pretty straightforward and honest.  The police and sheriff’s deputies can’t arrive instantaneously to rescue citizens from every or even many violent crimes, and so it’s incumbent on people to learn to defense themselves.  The Fox affiliate leaves out a very important part of the PSA, though, which the Journal Sentinel at least mentions:

Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm “so you can defend yourself until we get there.”

Yes, instead of either cowering under the bed or buying a weapon and shooting wildly, Sheriff Clarke wants citizens to receive proper instruction in self-defense — which includes learning how to handle a weapon as well as the proper uses and legal limitations of self-defense.  These courses instill discipline and self-control, as well as prepare people for the unlikely-but-still-possible situation where they may be the only defense they have against a violent criminal.

Of course, that produced the usual hysteria:

“If he does not feel he is capable of  doing this, and he’s not qualified to take on this role of public safety, he should resign and he should do it today,” said Jeri Bonavia of the non-profit Wisconsin Anti-violence Effort.

Bonavia says Clarke is asking citizens to become vigilantes.

“To issue a blanket statement that people should be out there, arming up, and taking care of safety matters that really law enforcement officials are trained to do, is just irresponsible,” said Bonavia.

The office of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said in a statement: “Apparently Sheriff David Clark (sp) is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie.”

Apparently, Barrett never watched the Dirty Harry movies, only one of which was about a vigilante (Sudden Impact, the worst of the series), and none of which had citizens acting in true self-defense.  Dirty Harry wasn’t about citizen vigilantes; it was about a sworn peace officer who used excessive force to deliver his own brand of justice.  In fact, Sheriff Clarke is warning his community that it’s impossible for police to rescue all the citizens from violent criminals, as Clint Eastwood manages to do in the film series, and that it’s their responsibility to learn how to defend themselves.

There’s a lot of irresponsibility in Milwaukee County, but it’s not coming from Sheriff Clarke.

Update: Fixed the headline — it’s Milwaukee County, not Milwaukee Country.

Update II: I messed up the video code when I added the first update. It’s now fixed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I still think “Magnum Force” was a Dirty Harry film with strong vigilante overtones. Just because they were cops, they were still vigilantes. And that first Charles Bronson movie “Death Wish” gave me nightmares. The Husband (before he was my husband) took me to see that on my birthday. Does that seriously sound like my choice?

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Is there nothing that liberals aren’t willing to let others do for them?

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Forgot the /sarc tag

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM

They would let you work and pay their taxes. Along with their retirement and their healthcare and their phone. They would make you drive them around but they still think that’s fun.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:17 PM

I know.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Well, that’s easy. My sheriff is Clarence Dumbs***, of the Giffords shooting fame who accused the Tea Party of being responsible before the crime scene had even been processed. He since doubled down, yet got reelected. Pima county AZ is full of regressive fools. I.e, I’m screwed.

AZfederalist on January 26, 2013 at 12:08 PM

It could be worse my friend, you could live here in the Peoples Marxist Republic of Kalifornia…

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM

“If he does not feel he is capable of doing this, and he’s not qualified to take on this role of public safety, he should resign and he should do it today,” said Jeri Bonavia of the non-profit Wisconsin Anti-violence Effort.

LOL
Yo, Chicklips …
The next time you need a cop, call Code Pink, or a plumber they’ll be there quicker.
And yet, we the people are expected to protect, serve, and defend the public?
Newp.
Aint no one gonna come to her rescue, especially if they know who she is.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 26, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM

I will never understand the liberal mindset on anything, but that especially applies to guns. Rather than my tax dollars paying for abortions, I would gladly pay for every law-abiding woman, on her 18th birthday, to receive from government the firearm of her choice, 500 rounds of ammo, and the training to handle her weapon.

Liberals want to stop violent crime against women? Then let every woman be armed and trained at government expense to use it. Of course this applies to all law-abiding citizens, but I’m keeping the subject narrow for the moment.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:27 PM

This sheriff appears to be one of the good guys. You should probably know where you sheriff stands before this stuff goes down. Many are already stating their positions publicly don’t be afraid to ask yours.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Well, that’s easy. My sheriff is Clarence Dumbs***, of the Giffords shooting fame who accused the Tea Party of being responsible before the crime scene had even been processed. He since doubled down, yet got reelected. Pima county AZ is full of regressive fools. I.e, I’m screwed.

AZfederalist on January 26, 2013 at 12:08 PM

You might want to work on making sure you have plenty of ammo and a good killing gun like a “assault weapon”. Preferably bought from a unregistered seller. If it’s registered work on your lying ability and be ready to say you turned it in for scrap or lost it in a boating accident.

of course, as if you don’t have enough issues with the feds and your local communist regime I’m sure the law abiding citizens of mexico won’t take advantage of the situation at all. Of course, they have very strict gun laws so none of them will be armed and dangerous.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM

In many, if not most states, the office of Sheriff is a civil office and the Sheriff is individually liable for suit. What happens when the Sheriff offers to provide a service and then fails to provide it? I don’t blame him for saying, If it’s legal and you’re capable, try to hold your own and don’t sue me when my cops are half an hour away

Mr. Grump on January 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:27 PM

I know how you feel, a lot of the time I have serious doubts about whether we are really in the same species.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:27 PM

I know how you feel, a lot of the time I have serious doubts about whether we are really in the same species.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:35 PM

They’re not, they are the Cow Bird/Kookoo Birds of the human species. More of a parasitic infection than anything else.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM

It could be worse my friend, you could live here in the Peoples Marxist Republic of Kalifornia…

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM

True ‘dat

AZfederalist on January 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Since when is protecting yourself and your loved ones considered “vigilantism”? Guess I missed the memo that says my God given right to protect my own life is now null and void and my choices are to beg or wait for the authorities to come and draw the white outline around my body.

djtnt on January 26, 2013 at 12:45 PM

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM

We’ll probably flee to Pinal or Maricopa counties where some sanity still rules.

AZfederalist on January 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM

I don’t blame him for saying, If it’s legal and you’re capable, try to hold your own and don’t sue me when my cops are half an hour away

Mr. Grump on January 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM

I find the underlying point Sheriff Clarke was making when it comes to legality is that so many people don’t understand the law as it applies to self-defense. Sheriff Clarke seems to be making a point that he could not fully explain in what amounts to a sound bite. His mention of it, however, indicates his sensibility and likely intent.

He’s not advocating, as anti-gun nuts are saying, that everybody go get a gun and think they can shoot willy-nilly the instant someone tells them their momma wears combat boots.

There ARE legal restrictions when it comes to self-defense. Here are just a few, as I understand and apply in all fifty states:

1. If a criminal invades your home and you confront him with a gun, and he turns to flee, do not shoot him in the back.

2. You may follow him inside your home but if he gets out, do not shoot him on the front lawn. Let him go.

3. NEVER ever, ever aim for a head shot. That implies intent to kill. Only if he’s committing a felony and you catch him–like raping your daughter–deadly force is fully authorized in all cases, including if you’re a third party.

4. Once the criminal is down and no longer a threat after deciding need to shoot him, DO NOT shoot him again.

I’m sure there are other considerations to matters of law. But, realistically, Sheriff Clarke is totally sensible in his statement and approach.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I know how you feel, a lot of the time I have serious doubts about whether we are really in the same species.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Sadly, we are.

Talk about ‘polluting the gene pool’…

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM

We’ll probably flee to Pinal or Maricopa counties where some sanity still rules.

AZfederalist on January 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Like your chances with Sherrif Joe.

However, think the the kenyan and his regime might post a full military base in that county if it goes down? My guess is that it will the regime’s operating center for the whole state.

Might have a better chance in your own county. Just hope there are a lot of liberal parasites calling 911 and getting themselves killed, raped and pillaged. Should be some leftover food and other necessities.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Is there nothing that liberals aren’t willing to let others do for them?

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

potty training…is hard!

KOOLAID2 on January 26, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Might have a better chance in your own county. Just hope there are a lot of liberal parasites calling 911 and getting themselves killed, raped and pillaged. Should be some leftover food and other necessities.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 12:51 PM

You have a point there. ;-)

AZfederalist on January 26, 2013 at 12:57 PM

This sheriff appears to be one of the good guys. You should probably know where you sheriff stands before this stuff goes down. Many are already stating their positions publicly don’t be afraid to ask yours.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I’ve mentioned in other threads, mine – Sheriff Maketa, El Paso County, CO has already publicly stated he will not enforce any federal law that infringes on the 2nd Amendment. He also provided funding and support along with the Army (Fort Carson) and the county board to build a huge new public shooting range on Fort Carson land. They SHOT the ribbon to open it 3 days ago. Proceeds go to Fort Carson MWR programs.
Now THAT’s a pro 2nd Amendment county government!

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM

I still think “Magnum Force” was a Dirty Harry film with strong vigilante overtones. Just because they were cops, they were still vigilantes. And that first Charles Bronson movie “Death Wish” gave me nightmares. The Husband (before he was my husband) took me to see that on my birthday. Does that seriously sound like my choice?

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Which is why Dirty Harry doesn’t join them . He’s still a cop .

EnglishRogue on January 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Well, that’s easy. My sheriff is Clarence Dumbs***, of the Giffords shooting fame who accused the Tea Party of being responsible before the crime scene had even been processed. He since doubled down, yet got reelected. Pima county AZ is full of regressive fools. I.e, I’m screwed.

AZfederalist on January 26, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Didn’t Sheriff Dipshit and/or his department have prior knowledge or run-ins with Loughner? I seem to recall that there was something along those lines.

But, when in doubt CYA-mode, blame the Tea Party!

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Police forces, especially like the ones we think of, are a modern development. New York City didn’t have a police force until 1845.

Before that, every able-bodied male had a duty to help protect the peace. When a problem arose, community leaders would call for a group of armed citizens to deal with it (the origin of the “posse”.) This is also the origin of the term “hue and cry,” when an alarm went up, all able-bodied males were supposed to respond.

Over the decades, police forces have become larger, more powerful, and more military-like. At the same time, the citizen’s responsibility for keeping the peace has been diminished. The sheriff is just pointing out that when every second counts, the police are minutes away.

————-

There is also this: If you want us to rely solely on the police, it means we would have to be living in a police state. If you want enough officers to really keep everyone safe, it would require an enormous force.

HakerA on January 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

3. NEVER ever, ever aim for a head shot. That implies intent to kill. Only if he’s committing a felony and you catch him–like raping your daughter–deadly force is fully authorized in all cases, including if you’re a third party.

Where did you get this?

If you are in a situation serious enough to draw a weapon and fire that weapon, you are already in a situation requiring deadly force. I’ve never, ever heard of a situation where someone is taught to shoot to maim. (wing ‘em?). Anyway, how do you prove someone actually aimed for the head (if they don’t say so), given how random targeting actually is in a self-defense situation?

Tomblvd on January 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

There is also this: If you want us to rely solely on the police, it means we would have to be living in a police state. If you want enough officers to really keep everyone safe, it would require an enormous force.

HakerA on January 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

A fresh concept into the debate.

~thumbs up~

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

So when does Boehner do a pro 2nd amendment press conference flanked by heads of law enforment agencies? Never because he sucks. If the dolts that run the GOP have a smidgen of Breitbart political instincts we would be winning.

Honestly it is not up to the GOP. We the people that vote for these dolts need to be more politically aware and continnue to roll these fools (looking at you Dewhurst). The day that Republican voters in Ohio have the wisdom to roll Boehner the national political dynamic will change considerably. It is painfully obvious he is not up to the task, but he remains. This is a bad sign for the right side of the political spectrum.

Theworldisnotenough on January 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

What is it these libtard moroons don’t understand?

Here’s the absolute fact: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

It isn’t the duty of the police to protect your sorry butt. Their job is to investigate the crime and possibly bring the perp to justice. After the fact.

If you want your personal butt protected, then your personal butt needs to get off the couch and to your local gun shop. Then, get some training, and get to the range as often as you can so your defensive skills stay sharp.

If you depend on the police to keep you safe, make sure your will is in order and your funeral plans are up to date.

Crusader Rabbit on January 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM

So when does Boehner do a pro 2nd amendment press conference flanked by heads of law enforment agencies? Never because he sucks.
Theworldisnotenough on January 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Yup. Never. Because he sucks. Because the GOP sucks. We need to go the Breitbart route. Get angry, get in their faces, stop waiting for the next assault on our freedoms, go on the offensive, assault them and their premises first.

rrpjr on January 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

What is it these libtard moroons don’t understand?

Crusader Rabbit on January 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM

When it comes to reality, the answer is, “Everything.”

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

EnglishRogue on January 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Yep! I’m just disagreeing with Ed.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM

What is it these libtard moroons don’t understand?

Crusader Rabbit on January 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Facts, logic, reason, truth, honesty, integrity, the real world, history, human nature, biology,………..
How far do we need to take this?

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Turning the other cheek isn’t about self defense. Jesus actually ordered his disciples to get swords.

chemman on January 26, 2013 at 11:01 AM

And they would have too, if Pheinstein the Pharisee hadn’t had swords over 1.5 inches banned, claiming that “Citizens don’t need military style assault swords.”

justltl on January 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM

What is it these libtard moroons don’t understand?

Crusader Rabbit on January 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM

We don’t care what they understand and don’t understand. We only want to defeat them. The battle ground is the people in between. Example: I have a two coworkers with which I occaisionally talk politics. When I make a good point one will say “Hmm I never thought of it that way.” He is maleable. The other will intterupt him and say “But! But!…” Mr Buts is not swayable Mr. I Never Thought Of It like That is swayable. One is a leftwing religious zealot, one hasn’t fully been indoctrinated into the cult of the left. I want to sway him incrementally on a daily basis. My eventual goal is to silence Mr. But not because I bully him but because his arguemenst are weak, and I have ran his pathetic arguements clean through. Once that is complete, the workplace will be a petri dish for conservatism.

Gotta have a plan…

Theworldisnotenough on January 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM

This sheriff appears to be one of the good guys. You should probably know where you sheriff stands before this stuff goes down. Many are already stating their positions publicly don’t be afraid to ask yours.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I’ve mentioned in other threads, mine – Sheriff Maketa, El Paso County, CO has already publicly stated he will not enforce any federal law that infringes on the 2nd Amendment. He also provided funding and support along with the Army (Fort Carson) and the county board to build a huge new public shooting range on Fort Carson land. They SHOT the ribbon to open it 3 days ago. Proceeds go to Fort Carson MWR programs.
Now THAT’s a pro 2nd Amendment county government!

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Sounds like your county will be an excellent place for the kenyan to locate a federal quadrant outpost along with a armored division. Might even establish it as the outpost for airborne ops in the rockies.

Does make you wonder which side the government will average military troop will fall on?

You do have a good one as your sheriff.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

IIRC, Sheriff Clarke was equally plain-spoken about the rash of black on white mob attacks in Milwaukee last summer. He is obviously unconcerned about ruffling feathers amongst the pearl-clutching class.

novaculus on January 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM

In response to the post above, here is a link to a discussion of the “Stand Your Ground” law. If you read the whole thing please note that nowhere does it differentiate between the use of deadly and non-deadly force.

I can’t stress that point enough. If you are in a situation where you feel it necessary to pull your gun, you are in a situation where deadly force (in those jurisdictions which allow, which are most these days) is justified.

Tomblvd on January 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Before that, every able-bodied male had a duty to help protect the peace. When a problem arose, community leaders would call for a group of armed citizens to deal with it (the origin of the “posse”.) This is also the origin of the term “hue and cry,” when an alarm went up, all able-bodied males were supposed to respond.

That’s still the law on the books. If a police officer asks for your help and you refuse, you can be fined or jailed. But if you call the police for help and they’re too late or don’t come at all, there is no punishment or fine for them.

But there is one exception: If you’re a convicted criminal, disarmed and helpless in prison, then the state can be held liable if they don’t protect you. Liberals, essentially, want to treat all of society that way. It relieves them of having to be judgmental about who’s good and who’s bad.

The only person responsible for your safety is you, since you’re the only one that will pay the penalty for the failure to protect.

Socratease on January 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM

It is no failure to forget to use a sarc tag, in fact an otherwise dreary thread can be enlivened by outraged retorts to such comments.

Bishop on January 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM

.
So sayeth the member who dates back to when this blog was just he and Ed Morrissey scratching thoughts on flat pieces of rock they handed back and forth to each other by the firelight in their cave.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

(AP had to sit outside the cave for having brought home a saber-toothed kitty.)

PolAgnostic on January 26, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Does make you wonder which side the government will average military troop will fall on?

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM


Nope. Have known and know too many of them.

Google “fragging” – best real world embodiment of a military axiom that was old when Julius Caesar was young …

“Never give your troops an order you know they won’t obey.”

PolAgnostic on January 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I can’t stress that point enough. If you are in a situation where you feel it necessary to pull your gun, you are in a situation where deadly force (in those jurisdictions which allow, which are most these days) is justified.

Ditto. There’s no such thing as “shoot to wound”. Either deadly force is justified, or don’t pull the trigger.

Read Massad Ayoob’s book for an authoritative discussion.

Socratease on January 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Read Massad Ayoob’s book for an authoritative discussion.

Socratease on January 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM

.
Excellent book, Ayoob provides a lot of good tips in addition to breaking down the legal aspects on the use of deadly force.

PolAgnostic on January 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM

What is it these libtard moroons don’t understand?

It’s often ignorance, not intelligence. They’re not exposed to thinking about threats as something you personally respond to. Nor are they familiar with exercising personal responsibility over deadly weapons. (Except that they drive a car everyday, but since Hollywood hasn’t told them they can be used as deadly weapons it’s beyond their comprehension.)

It’s something that can usually be solved with education, but that doesn’t mean liberals are blameless, as their ignorance is deliberate. That’s why they’re so adamant that all children and young adults should be kept in ignorance of proper firearm safety and responsible gun handling. They really hate it when Eddie Eagle shows up in school.

Socratease on January 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM

It’s often ignorance, not intelligence. They’re not exposed to thinking about threats as something you personally respond to. Nor are they familiar with exercising personal responsibility over deadly weapons. (Except that they drive a car everyday, but since Hollywood hasn’t told them they can be used as deadly weapons it’s beyond their comprehension.)

It’s something that can usually be solved with education, but that doesn’t mean liberals are blameless, as their ignorance is deliberate. That’s why they’re so adamant that all children and young adults should be kept in ignorance of proper firearm safety and responsible gun handling. They really hate it when Eddie Eagle shows up in school.

Socratease on January 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM

It’s not as complicated as you think.

Liberals are very simplistic, base. Yes, they over-complicate matters but, when you get down to it, they’re generally quite infantile.

Like infants, liberals deal only with the here-and-now, what serves to gratify at the moment. Then they move to something else.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Irresponsibility!
It seems to be a Wisconsin disease, but they’re attempting to get better at it.
It’s funny, when the 2-A community cites SCOTUS precedent for the State not being responsible for protecting individuals, they are accused of fear-mongering;
When a duly-sworn CLEO does the same, citing budget restraints imposed upon his department by the political class, he’s accused of by incompetent.

The People are Sovereign, and must be prepared to defend themselves, their property, and families.
The Police will eventually come along and investigate the mess.

Another Drew on January 26, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Ditto. There’s no such thing as “shoot to wound”. Either deadly force is justified, or don’t pull the trigger.

Read Massad Ayoob’s book for an authoritative discussion.

Socratease on January 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM

To expand on this, they teach ‘double-tap to center of mass,’ not headshots, in gun classes. Headshots should be neither needed nor desired, as you should be using hollow-points in the first place and that will take ample care of the problem.

As well, if you feel that the perp still poses a threat even if he’s retreating (to what end…reloading?), you are totally justified in shooting him in the back.

And finally, you never ‘confront him with a gun.’ You don’t give him time to use his own weapon. You shoot, or you…well, I don’t know what else you’d do…but if you present yourself to the criminal with a gun in your hands, you shoot.

James on January 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Like infants, liberals deal only with the here-and-now, what serves to gratify at the moment. Then they move to something else.

Look, Bunnies!

Another Drew on January 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I ♥ the Sheriff

entagor on January 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Had an object lesson in the requirement for self-defense just yesterday. Walking to lunch on a downtown city street in a sketchy neighborhood (office is located there). Drunk street person bumps into me and is knocked into some signs. After pulling himself together he starts following the three of us up the street clearly angry and appearing to ready himself to assault me.

As he walked up I was wondering what weapon he was carrying (virtually all street people have knives around here) and if he was going to pull it if we had to mix it up. Of course I wasn’t carrying my piece that day (because nothing ever happens at the office, you know). As it turns out the drunk was unwilling to pursue the matter further (a happy event). However, given the shootings and stabbings around this neighborhood –despite a lot of police presence–I will be following this sheriff’s advice from now on.

iconoclast on January 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM

pretty clear line between elected county sheriffs and appointed police chiefs.

rayra on January 26, 2013 at 2:49 PM

To expand on this, they teach ‘double-tap to center of mass,’ not headshots, in gun classes. Headshots should be neither needed nor desired, as you should be using hollow-points in the first place and that will take ample care of the problem.

As well, if you feel that the perp still poses a threat even if he’s retreating (to what end…reloading?), you are totally justified in shooting him in the back.

And finally, you never ‘confront him with a gun.’ You don’t give him time to use his own weapon. You shoot, or you…well, I don’t know what else you’d do…but if you present yourself to the criminal with a gun in your hands, you shoot.

James on January 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Indeed, these are all good points. I meant to expand on some of them in the original post but it seems the OP doesn’t want to explain where s/he gets the information.

Deadly force is called that for a reason, whether it is a shotgun shot to the head or emptying a revolver into the body, it doesn’t matter as long as the perp is stopped. I’m interested in hearing where this “don’t aim for the head” idea came from (other than it isn’t a very good tactic).

Tomblvd on January 26, 2013 at 3:37 PM

There ARE legal restrictions when it comes to self-defense. Here are just a few, as I understand and apply in all fifty states:

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Not in all 50 states.

Oldnuke on January 26, 2013 at 4:25 PM

This is a good Sheriff. He is properly treating the citizens as partners and not the patronizing attitude of many local governments that treat the citizens like children. Milwaukee County has a gem.

crosspatch on January 26, 2013 at 4:30 PM

hey all!

In reference to the duty of the police as a whole this was ruled on in:
Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department‏

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals–or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker

g2825m on January 26, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Socratease on January 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Massad Ayoob is a great guy and firearms teacher. However, the commenter had a point about “head shots”. If you live in a blue location, in particular, you might have to face a grand jury (or a full jury) for shooting someone whom you felt was a threat. Anything you do – from lessening the trigger pull, to putting a laser sight on your firearm, to taking a “head shot” – that increases the lethality of your shot will be used against you. It will be used to show that you had some innate desire to kill someone, and this poor schlub just happened to be the one that got in your way.

It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do what’s necessary – including putting a round through a perp’s noggin. What it really means is to know the things that they will try to use against you, and make sure you have intelligent, reasonable answers to them. Ad, that you might want to retain an attorney who knows his way around those sorts of cases and has the right experts on call, just in case.

(There’s a regular column in Guns & Weapons For Law Enforcement about this very subject. It’s a very informative read on how to idiot-proof your firearms actions.)

GWB on January 26, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Sorry for the O/T but I just found this and it is for ALL serving and retired military. bho is doing his evil best aginst all their healthcare. Please read and if you agree pass on. The reason I am sending this, this effects our family member serving now and retired. IMO, these who went to give their lives and got precious little pay should at least have medical care cheaper than the union thugs! bho hates the guts out of our military and is doing his best to trash it!

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/
L

letget on January 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Smart man. Telling people to defend themselves. Makes for fewer victims of crime and will help him get criminals off the streets if they are DEAD instead of in his lockup.

TX-96 on January 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM

This is a good Sheriff. He is properly treating the citizens as partners and not the patronizing attitude of many local governments that treat the citizens like children. Milwaukee County has a gem.

crosspatch on January 26, 2013 at 4:30 PM

You might say that he’s treating them as fellow citizens. Unfortunately, that seems to be an unusual concept for some police (especially the brass).

GWB on January 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM


Wrong WRONG WRONG ! ! !

There ARE legal restrictions when it comes to self-defense. Here are just a few, as I understand and apply in all fifty states:

1. If a criminal invades your home and you confront him with a gun, and he turns to flee, do not shoot him in the back.

2. You may follow him inside your home but if he gets out, do not shoot him on the front lawn. Let him go.

3. NEVER ever, ever aim for a head shot. That implies intent to kill. Only if he’s committing a felony and you catch him–like raping your daughter–deadly force is fully authorized in all cases, including if you’re a third party.

4. Once the criminal is down and no longer a threat after deciding need to shoot him, DO NOT shoot him again.

I’m sure there are other considerations to matters of law. But, realistically, Sheriff Clarke is totally sensible in his statement and approach.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM

TX-96 on January 26, 2013 at 4:56 PM

3. NEVER ever, ever aim for a head shot. That implies intent to kill. Only if he’s committing a felony and you catch him–like raping your daughter–deadly force is fully authorized in all cases, including if you’re a third party.

Where did you get this?

If you are in a situation serious enough to draw a weapon and fire that weapon, you are already in a situation requiring deadly force. I’ve never, ever heard of a situation where someone is taught to shoot to maim. (wing ‘em?). Anyway, how do you prove someone actually aimed for the head (if they don’t say so), given how random targeting actually is in a self-defense situation?

Tomblvd on January 26, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Dad taught me: 1st shot should be dead center in the chest (unless you are a serious crack shop) to drop ‘em. After that, the shots should be easier to make.

Laura in Maryland on January 26, 2013 at 5:26 PM

I think a lot of you miss a very big point. It not that most people can’t defend themselves from criminals it’s that it won’t happen to a large amount of people. That’s right, the anti gun people don’t care about the victims as long as it’s an acceptable amount. People with large amounts of property or large defense forces at their beck and call will be safe. Only ordinary citizens will be at risk, and only a fraction of them will be harmed.

Observation on January 26, 2013 at 5:28 PM

After that, the shots should be easier to make.

Laura in Maryland on January 26, 2013 at 5:26 PM

You might want to be a little careful how you word that to the investigating team. The guy was still a threat,…RIGHT?

a capella on January 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM

The court has ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect anyone.

And liberals want to remove methods of self-defense.

HondaV65 on January 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Hi Obama voter. Are you having fun yet? I hope so – you voted for this!

kim roy on January 26, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Is there nothing that liberals aren’t willing to let others do for them?

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

If you replace “others” with “government” you have just defined socialism in one sentence.

The short answer: No. Liberals/socialists don’t want the heavy lifting of thinking for themselves or personal responsibility.

kim roy on January 26, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Sounds like your county will be an excellent place for the kenyan to locate a federal quadrant outpost along with a armored division. Might even establish it as the outpost for airborne ops in the rockies.

Does make you wonder which side the government will average military troop will fall on?

You do have a good one as your sheriff.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

We already have Fort Carson, Cheyenne Mountain AFS, Peterson AFB, Schriever AFB, USAF Academy. That’s why this area is so conservative overall – we’re the deepest red part of Colorado.
Most of the military and police that I know are more likely to be on our side if Obumble makes too much of a play for total dictatorship.

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Sounds like your county will be an excellent place for the kenyan to locate a federal quadrant outpost along with a armored division. Might even establish it as the outpost for airborne ops in the rockies.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

We already have the headquarters for NORAD, US Northern Command, Air Force Space Command, and Army Space & Missile Defense Command.
And Fort Carson has the 4th Infantry Division, as well as smaller units of Special Forces and others.

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 6:29 PM

3. NEVER ever, ever aim for a head shot. That implies intent to kill. Only if he’s committing a felony and you catch him–like raping your daughter–deadly force is fully authorized in all cases, including if you’re a third party.

You don’t aim for the head because you will probably miss. Always aim for center mass. Each State has different laws pertaining shooting an intruder. In my State I can shoot once a perp crosses the threshold of my door or moves at me in my yard in a threatening manner.

booger71 on January 26, 2013 at 6:35 PM

You don’t aim for the head because you will probably miss. Always aim for center mass. Each State has different laws pertaining shooting an intruder. In my State I can shoot once a perp crosses the threshold of my door or moves at me in my yard in a threatening manner.

booger71 on January 26, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Ya – “intent to kill” is not a problem in Colorado under the “make my day” law. Deadly force authorized means just that. The issue is what part of a moving target can you best hit in the dark.

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Now go get everybody some popcorn!
/

VegasRick on January 26, 2013 at 10:51 A

Yeah, and no salt. Oh, I don’t like margarine. And make sure the corn isn’t from genetically modified grain, and the box is from at least 80% recycled paper content.

BobMbx on January 26, 2013 at 10:57 AM

And extra butter. Real, organic butter…from contented cows.

And sea salt on the side…just in case.

And, as long as you’re up…a sammich.

And a beer. Imported.

Solaratov on January 26, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Is there nothing that liberals aren’t willing to let others do for them?

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Eating Obama’s sh*t.

Schadenfreude on January 26, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Finally, a spokesman for law enforcement. Bet that sent Obama/Biden around the bend.

LizardLips on January 26, 2013 at 7:33 PM

This sheriff is legit. He’s the one person that Mark Belling told the Rs to vote for because he’s a non-nonsense guy. This guy means business and he doesn’t like to sugarcoat issues. He is a saving grace to Milwaukee. Barrett’s worried about putting in some trolley. Because it doesn’t snow/rain in WI, making trolleys ineffective.

Midwestprincesse on January 26, 2013 at 8:59 PM

This is a good Sheriff. He is properly treating the citizens as partners and not the patronizing attitude of many local governments that treat the citizens like children. Milwaukee County has a gem.

crosspatch on January 26, 2013 at 4:30 PM

.
The whole liberal/progressive mind-set can be summed up as:

“Those of us in Civil Authority (government; local, state, and federal) are the Shepherds.

The rest of you are our sheep.

listens2glenn on January 26, 2013 at 10:31 PM

dentarthurdent on January 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM
Sounds like your county will be an excellent place for the kenyan to locate a federal quadrant outpost along with a armored division. Might even establish it as the outpost for airborne ops in the rockies.

Does make you wonder which side the government will average military troop will fall on?

You do have a good one as your sheriff.

acyl72 on January 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Do you even know what Ft Carson is? Google it…

Big John on January 26, 2013 at 10:33 PM

“If he does not feel he is capable of doing this, and he’s not qualified to take on this role of public safety, he should resign and he should do it today,” said Jeri Bonavia of the non-profit Wisconsin Anti-violence Effort.

Bonavia says Clarke is asking citizens to become vigilantes.

“To issue a blanket statement that people should be out there, arming up, and taking care of safety matters that really law enforcement officials are trained to do, is just irresponsible,” said Bonavia.

The office of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said in a statement: “Apparently Sheriff David Clark (sp) is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie.”

.
Sorry-assed excuses for citizens of the United States.

listens2glenn on January 26, 2013 at 10:46 PM

3. NEVER ever, ever aim for a head shot. That implies intent to kill. Only if he’s committing a felony and you catch him–like raping your daughter–deadly force is fully authorized in all cases, including if you’re a third party.

Liam: In NYS, the ONLY reason to shoot anybody is to prevent one of the eneumerated classes of felony (Rape, Assault, Arson,etc) or to prevent the use of deadly physical force on yourself or another person. That means if you shoot somebody you damn well better be planning on killing them because the only legitimate reason is to stop deadly physical force. To wound someone constitutes assault on your part. See NYSPL Art 35

Mr. Grump on January 27, 2013 at 12:40 AM

Consider yourselves lucky. The official policy towards home defense in Australia is ‘try to escape out the back door while they’re coming in through the front’. And ‘if you can’t get away, give them everything they want’. I’m not kidding. This is actual police advice.

The Thin Man Returns on January 27, 2013 at 12:56 AM

The Thin Man Returns on January 27, 2013 at 12:56 AM

Advice for subjects, not citizens.

James on January 27, 2013 at 1:57 AM

I’m thinking about getting a Berreta M9 for home defense. It’s a 9mm with 15rnd capacity. Anyone have any opinions/comments on this choice of weapon?

St Gaudens on January 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM

St Gaudens on January 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM

I don’t know the weapon itself, but Baretta is a world-respected name brand.

Liam on January 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Consider yourselves lucky. The official policy towards home defense in Australia is ‘try to escape out the back door while they’re coming in through the front’. And ‘if you can’t get away, give them everything they want’. I’m not kidding. This is actual police advice.

The Thin Man Returns on January 27, 2013 at 12:56 AM

.
I’ll use the word “blessed”, as opposed to “lucky”. But I do understand that “you’re not kidding”.
Is there ANY legal, private ownership of firearms in Australia, anymore?

listens2glenn on January 27, 2013 at 8:21 AM

I’ll use the word “blessed”, as opposed to “lucky”. But I do understand that “you’re not kidding”.
Is there ANY legal, private ownership of firearms in Australia, anymore?

listens2glenn on January 27, 2013 at 8:21 AM

Forget the concept of ‘legal’ there, friend. Transpose the word ‘allowable’ instead, and you have the definition of criminal-coddling liberals.

They’re trying to do the same here by demanding place to steal our guns. The same nutcases who scream and protest so hard against the death penalty are the very same vermin who think you should be imprisoned for life for shooting the slob who is out to rape your daughter.

Liam on January 27, 2013 at 8:27 AM

I’m thinking about getting a Berreta M9 for home defense. It’s a 9mm with 15rnd capacity. Anyone have any opinions/comments on this choice of weapon?

St Gaudens on January 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM

SG, that question is way too complicated to answer in a single post, there are so many factors as to what weapon best suits your situation.

Do you live in a house or apartment?

How many live in your house?

Do you have kids?

Do you often have large numbers of people in your house?

What kind of neighborhood do you live?

If you go to a gun store, a knowledgeable salesman will ask many questions like that in order to steer you to the right weapon. For example, many people feel a shotgun is by far the best choice for home defense, but there are mitigating factors (i.e. do you intend on using it for conceal carry in the future). If you choose a handgun, caliber is an important decision if you are a small-framed woman or if you want to train your kids to shoot (a larger round like a .45 has much more stopping power than a 9mm, but can be harder to handle).

Go to a reputable gun store, preferably one with an attached shooting range, and ask a lot of questions, and shoot a lot of guns, and listen to what the experts have to say. That’s the only way you’ll find what you need.

Tomblvd on January 27, 2013 at 9:01 AM

I don’t know the weapon itself, but Baretta is a world-respected name brand.

Liam on January 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Yea, but he’s looking for a gun, not a Baretta.

BTW, there are some questions for you upthread.

Tomblvd on January 27, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Oh, hell yes

I just recently paid over a hundred dollars to take an all day concealed handgun class. Time and money well spent.

mike_NC9 on January 27, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Yea, but he’s looking for a gun, not a Baretta.

BTW, there are some questions for you upthread.

Tomblvd on January 27, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Thanks for the heads-up! I have to take a peek.

Liam on January 27, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Liam: In NYS, the ONLY reason to shoot anybody is to prevent one of the eneumerated classes of felony (Rape, Assault, Arson,etc) or to prevent the use of deadly physical force on yourself or another person. That means if you shoot somebody you damn well better be planning on killing them because the only legitimate reason is to stop deadly physical force. To wound someone constitutes assault on your part. See NYSPL Art 35

Mr. Grump on January 27, 2013 at 12:40 AM

I was speaking in generalities, considering a home invasion. In other circumstances, like encountering a rape in progress as a third party, anywhere the bullet goes is legitimate. And, yes–if as a third party encountering such a horrid crime, I would shoot to kill without warning.

Liam on January 27, 2013 at 9:48 AM

I was speaking in generalities, considering a home invasion.

So if there is a home invasion you cannot use deadly force?

Tomblvd on January 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM

So if there is a home invasion you cannot use deadly force?

Tomblvd on January 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Legally, to a certain point.

I’m not claiming to have the definitive answer here. I worked a while with PA State Police, and they told me a few things. So, I’m talking in generalities to protect a Citizen who needed to shoot from prosecution.

I have no problem at all with a Citizen icing an intruder. I simply offered some ideas of which to be aware when a criminal needs to be shot.

Liam on January 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Apparently, Barrett never watched the Dirty Harry movies, only one of which was about a vigilante (Sudden Impact, the worst of the series), and none of which had citizens acting in true self-defense.

Maybe they confused Dirty Harry with Death Wish.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

I don’t know this guy’s history. BUUUTTT I will remind you before you get excited of what he ACTUALLY said.

1. Unlike before, you waiting for us to get to you is not your best option. Which translated means he believed waiting WAS your best option before.

2. Before what? Ahhhh, layoffs and furloughs. So is the sheriff, a public official in charge of a growing bureaucracy that is under funding fire doing what they do best and complain? Is he trying to remind people just how important sheriffs are? Kind of like how Headstart claims they are irreplaceable? The Department of education, the EPA?

3. I’ve seen a variation of this before with my own department. We’ve actually told citizens to get ready because we were not going to be there. It scared the people, who in turn bitched at the politicians who miraculously “found” the funding for our people.

4. And lastly, jumping on the liberal hatred for guns and their control over the budget is brilliant. He is saying to them. “Fund us or arm them!”

God love a politician with a gun!

archer52 on January 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Legally, to a certain point.

I’m not claiming to have the definitive answer here. I worked a while with PA State Police, and they told me a few things. So, I’m talking in generalities to protect a Citizen who needed to shoot from prosecution.

I have no problem at all with a Citizen icing an intruder. I simply offered some ideas of which to be aware when a criminal needs to be shot.

Liam on January 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM

No, there is no “certain point”. If you feel you or someone else in your house is in enough danger that you feel justified to pull and fire a firearm, you are allowed to use deadly force. There is no gray area here in Pennsylvania, or any other state I’m aware of.

Tomblvd on January 27, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Anyone have any opinions/comments on this choice of weapon?

St Gaudens on January 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM

Beretta makes fine firearms. I don’t think you could go wrong with that particular brand. I have several handguns but my 12 gauge pump shotgun would be my first choice for home defense should the need arise. It will send 9 .32″ pellets at 1275 feet per second with a single pull of the trigger. Plus, nothing says GTFO of my house like the sound of a pump action.
If you’re new to handguns, most experts will advise you to start with a revolver. They’re simple to operate, very reliable and durable. Semi-automatics can be finicky when it comes to ammo, are harder to clean and require more maintenance due to all the working parts. Whatever kind of gun you get make sure you shoot it often and get as familiar with it as you can. Target shooting is really fun and can be addictive so if you’re anything like me, you may end up with all 3. (revolver, pistol and shotgun)

mike_NC9 on January 27, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Tomblvd on January 27, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Thanks! I’m going to follow your advise. I was just checking out Beretta’s website, and it looks like the M9 or 92FS might suit my needs at this point (without having fired yet).

But, I’ll definitely do my homework and consumer shopping before making a decision.

Thanks again.

St Gaudens on January 27, 2013 at 10:55 AM

No, there is no “certain point”. If you feel you or someone else in your house is in enough danger that you feel justified to pull and fire a firearm, you are allowed to use deadly force. There is no gray area here in Pennsylvania, or any other state I’m aware of.

Tomblvd on January 27, 2013 at 10:46 AM

I’m not advocating or equivocating here. If someone illegally enters my home, he’s toast the instant I see him. He won’t have chance to run away.

I fully agree with you on all your points. My intent was to simply let people know how laws ‘work’. The law puts limits, and that’s something we have to suffer. I hate it, but I’m stuck with it as are we all.

I assure, I’m totally and fully on your side.

Liam on January 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM

If someone illegally enters my home, he’s toast the instant I see him. He won’t have chance to run away.
Liam on January 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM

You should be careful typing that kind of thing on the internet should you ever be in that situation and have to defend your actions later. If you wake up in the middle of the night and find someone walking out the front door with both hands full of big screen TV and you shoot him/her, you will probably be in big trouble. If you ever take someone’s life you better be able to honestly say you felt there was an imminent threat to your life regardless of where you are.

mike_NC9 on January 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I fully agree with you on all your points. My intent was to simply let people know how laws ‘work’. The law puts limits, and that’s something we have to suffer. I hate it, but I’m stuck with it as are we all.

Then please explain this statement:

3. NEVER ever, ever aim for a head shot. That implies intent to kill. Only if he’s committing a felony and you catch him–like raping your daughter–deadly force is fully authorized in all cases, including if you’re a third party.

Tomblvd on January 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3