for those that think zero tolerance is the answer read this http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/03/flo...

Ya know, we're going to need someone to replace Governor Walker when he becomes Ryan's Vice President. I nominate Sheriff Clarke for the job!

Again, it's one thing to think it, it's another to publicly suggest it especially when you're in law enforcement. It just makes you a prime target for lawsuits that will cost the county money it doesn't have. It's easy to hit the like button over and over especially if you don't live in Milwaukee county (I don't by the way) but if you think about this in a practical sense, this was a huge mistake by the Sheriff. I know a lot of you guys love this sheriff because he's a straight shooter, right? He just makes you want to start yee hawin' all over the place and firin' yer six shooter up in the air to celebrate, doesn't he? Meanwhile, back in reality he's done more harm than good. A proper leader knows when it's best just to keep his mouth shut. But what do you expect from a guy who goes on Alex Jones and yammers on about how the next American Revolution is at hand?

Walter
The fear mongering is on your part. OOOOHH there will be lawsuits. Oh goodness. By the way Walter breaking and entering in my house is punishable by death.

Joker, how many times have we told you to unplug your cable modem when you have your crazy old uncle Walter over for dinner? You know he shouldn't be using your computer unsupervised. ☺

Sheriff Clarke is just telling it like it is, which is upsetting those nanny-state socialist politicians in Milwaukee. "How dare he suggest our peasants be self-sufficient in self-defense? They might get the idea they can get by with less government in their lives! Let's hope the county medical examiner doesn't get into the act and suggest people buy first aid kits and take lessons from the Red Cross."

No one is talking about legit self defense, and no one's talking about suing someone who legitimately defends him or herself. It's this fear mongering sheriff that will most likely get blamed by some idiot who shoots an innocent. That's where the law suit comes in. By the way, joker, I'm typing this from inside your house. Better come get me.

I am locked and loaded and anyone in my home better be an invited guest. If his family wants to sue me for shooting him let them. They will lose.

There was no contradiction. The shooting is going to take place PSA or no PSA. See the old man that shot the boy in Milwaukee over non-existent stolen guns. What I pointed out and what RAF pointed out by quoting me is that the shooter will blame the PSA and the victim's family will sue the sheriff's department and the county. Again, your lack of higher order thinking skills has prevented you from seeing the bigger picture and the irresponsibility of the Sheriff Clarke. Feel free to keep licking his boots, though. You seem very skilled at it.

guns are not always going to be the answer to a home invasion, and I would hope a law enforcement official would support public safety education based on something other than his personal agenda; why would he want to put more guns into the hands of the citizens he's hired to protect? sounds like a lose/lose situation, and maybe they should hire more law enforcement officials, instead...and don't think I won't use that axe handle or aluminum bat to club an intruder to death if necessary...I have several guns in my home, but they are not loaded, nor are they stored with the ammo, and in a surprise attack, won't do me any amount of good...

“RetiredAirForce”, glad you caught his contradiction, too. Well done.

“zdog”, you’re right: Nowhere in the Sheriff’s remarks can we misconstrue him to be advocating “vigilante justice”. He advocates for preparedness. He advocates for our understanding that cops cannot get to you in a timely manner. He advocates for our awareness that yes, we may have to opt for extreme methods to defend ourselves; to defend our loved ones; to defend our homes and possessions.
. . .
And “wasp2491” is correct, some situations do end badly for the victim. Give me my chance with my 9mm as opposed to being stripped of the ability by George Soros, Bill Clinton, et al. I’d rather go down fighting than having cowered against the wall in the corner as the perp prepares to have his way with me.

From “partarican1”: “...shooting someone shouldn’t be the best option...”
Sad truths include, however, that there are Evil people who will awaken today with intent of robbing or burgling or raping. And yes, perhaps some gangstuh will want to prove his threatened manhood to his Home Boys with a cowardly, heinous drive-by shooting. Sad truth is, some crazies - (not PC, but boo-hoo) walk among us and do awful things. Sad truth is that, some terrible emotional or mental “trigger” [ironic term, eh!] will cause an otherwise wonderful person to briefly abandon rational behavior and threaten terrible violence. Such as the recent strangling in Janesville.
. . .
So, how dare any of you to deprive the rest of us, the basic human right of self defense, with yes, a firearm, when the police - cannot - get - to - our - house - in - time‽ Do you really think that some 75 year old woman can use hand-to-hand combat to fight off a murderer or rapist‽
. . .
And hypocritically sad, too, that you support Obama’s and Clinton’s and Feinstein’s publically paid for rants about limiting my options for self defense, while at the very same time to rant over the imagined wrong of a public servant advocating that I work on my own behalf to keep loved ones safe

From “partarican1”: “...shooting someone shouldn’t be the best option...”
Nowhere do I understand Sheriff Clarke proclaiming that shooting an intruder is “the best option”. I don’t think you can logically - or fairly - conclude that by his comments. My belief is that ALL [italics] of us who have posted on this topic would prefer a non-violent deterrent. Fact is, however, that most vulnerable citizens will not [italics] have the luxury of a calm, measured retreat from the assailant; would not have an escape route out the back door; does not [italics] have an expensive “safe room” into which he/she can retreat.
. . .
Deciding to use a firearm on an assailant IS an awful decision. (We combat veterans know that.) One that none [italics] of us posters here would want to make, individually. Nor would we wish that situation on anyone else, “Walter” and “part”. Extremely difficult to live with knowing you chose the violent path. Out of need for survival: him or me.
. . .
Good public service, in my opinion, that Sheriff Clarke reminds folks that they, indeed, may have to make that choice because police likely can’t get there.

From “partarican1”: “...officials...encourage us to use a phone to call for help?” Do you NOT [we need italics] read the news nor use electronic media? Time after time the victim has already telephoned a frantic plea for help, or is actually mid-call to 911 center when the Evil Doer assaults/rapes/kills.
. . .
So go ahead, “part”, wave your telephone at your assailant, and speak firmly to your rapist or would-b murderer that “help is on the way”. Shake that worthless piece of paper on which your Restraining Order is printed...that will have the perp shivering in his shoes. you assert.
. . .
Most folks, contrary to “Walter’s” fear mongering will not rush out and buy a pistol because Sheriff Clarke advocates timely use of self defense. But I suggest to you, “Walter” and “part” and all the other leftie victims, that even a single life saved by an act of self defense is immeasurably worth the angst displayed on these e-pages. And worth, too, every dime from a lawsuit which folks like "Walter" think they are due.

Today's dose of liberal/socialist thoughtless posting. Walter has provided both of the following quotes...

"I never said that the PSA would lead to a shooting over a petty argument or a confused and senile old person shooting someone who they perceive to be a danger."

"This sheriff is an idiot and soon enough some kid is going to get shot and killed for not getting off some old man's lawn and that old man is going to cite the sheriff's commercial."

about time Our Tax Money goes to help Preserving our God Given Rights !!!

Pissing away the taxpayer dollar for right wing objectives. It's the Patriot Way.

Good enough for Scooter, good enough for the Sheriff. Beautiful

carlitosway said, "When are people going to get that more people are killed by their own guns in homes?" Take suicide out of the numbers and the numbers say the complete opposite. Are guns the problem, or is it a mental health issue?

wasp

First, the intruder has to make it past the Doberman, I'll take my chances.

of all the things tax payer money is spent on, people are "up in arms" over this???? People should call 911 and they should be prepared to defend themselves. There are PSA's on a ton of things, all played on tax payer money. It's funny to hear the talking heads on TV tell us what a travesty this is, promoting vigilante justice, when nothing of the sort was said.
-
I'd be more happy if gun classes were taught in gradeschool. Learn how to respect and safely handle a firearm. It's kind of sad how scary they are to so many people.

Wislady, "I haven't referred to you as a "comedian" or being illogical, yet you FEEL the need to dismiss any point of view that differs from you."

Thank you for the good laugh today, when have you ever taken someone else's point of view?

As for being raised around guns, so was I. I was also raised around other people and they scare me not the guns.

By the way I am very anti abortion and anti death penalty. A consistent position, I believe.

Wislady _ I also grew up on a farm. Used guns with my dad and uncles since I was a little kid. Yes, you are usually comedic. It is amusing to me when all these folks think they will defend themselves so easily. My take on it is, armed intruder, surprised homeowner. Not going to turn out well for homeowner. Silly to think odds with homeowner.

I thought Walter Reuther was dead. Also, Sheriff Clark runs as a Democrat.

It is hard for me to understand the fear people have of guns, since I grew up on a farm and hunting began at a very early age. The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of people who have guns, never had the background of being taught how to use the gun SAFELY.

Of course people should call 911 in an emergency, if they can. But if you think I will be grabbing the phone while a body is coming in a broken window, guess again. Use some common sense, or pay for the lack of it with your life.

I suppose some of you will ask the burglar to have a seat, while you discuss his "feelings". Maybe they can explain to you why they feel they have the RIGHT to forcibly take YOUR property.

"and how is it better to shoot someone inside your home than to use your phone to call for help?"-@1:34pm

Well here, let me show you one example, I can keep going till the cows come home if you like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Mas...

"and how is it better to shoot someone inside your home than to use your phone to call for help?"-@1:34pm

The average nationwide response time for a 911 call is something like 20 minutes. What will you do while waiting for the police to arrive? Perhaps make a pot of coffee and some cookies for the home invader?

wouldn't it be safer for our society if the law enforcement officials were to encourage us to use a phone to call for help? let's face it, locks don't deter someone if they want to get inside, and the faster help can come the better...and how is it better to shoot someone inside your home than to use your phone to call for help? there are other ways to deter unwanted visitors, and shooting someone shouldn't be the best option...I would rather my tax dollars NOT be spent encouraging people to use guns as weapons of defense...does the sheriff also recommend psychiatric evaluations for gun permits? probably not, even though they're more necessary than the commercial in question...

I'm sorry that some of you do not believe in personal accountability. "Feelings" won't save you in the type of situation Sheriff Clark was speaking about. Where are your "feelings" on the 55 million aborted babies in the past 40 years.

Spin that. I haven't referred to you as a "comedian" or being illogical, yet you FEEL the need to dismiss any point of view that differs from you.

I always feel bad for all the comedians that are out of work when Raf and Wislady start to post. Their idea of logic is astounding. They seem to use the tactic that any statistics that disagree with their opinions are false and don't confuse them with anything that even slightly go against their dogma. After all liberals use feelings and conservatives use logic, as we all well know. We can see it in their posts time and time again. The evidence is irrefutable! After all, we know if the good guy is armed it will always turn out in his favor, just like in the movies. It's logical!

Policemen and women are extensively trained on how NOT to shoot if they have any other recourse. This is one big big bad idea. People are going to get killed, and not just the bad guys. Someone stated earlier that there will be lawsuits. There will be.

I haven't seen this opinion anywhere yet, but have you considered that this guy is a genius?

I'm not mentioning the content of the PSA or the message it brings. You all can debate that. However, have you noticed the absolute flip in the political polarity here? The ad clearly states that they have cut funding to the police departments, who as you may know happen to employ public employees who belong to a public union. The ad clearly makes a case for more funding for those employees to those on the left, who believe that not having more guns in the hands of private citizens is the correct path to take. It also drums up emphatic support on the right side of the political spectrum, who immediately love the guy because of his stance on guns. Immediately he has unified both sides of the political spectrum towards giving the departments more support, both policical and financial. Any support he may lose towards his reelection on the left side of the fence will easily be made up by those newly supporting him on the right and the campaign contributions he will now recieve will be staggering.

This was masterfully done. I almost can't believe it. The guy's a genius, no doubt.

Mother Jones...fact check?

How is Chicago doing with their gun ban and murder rate?

I will provide one of the government funded left leaning sites for the left wing.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_is...

Since having a gun is ILLEGAL in Chicago, something is not working.

The firearm comments by the President and congress are also supported by tax dollars.

Who in this whole debate is really fear mongering? The people saying that there are bad people in this world that do bad things so you should have the opportunity to defend yourself? Or the people who are making the rest of the law-abiding citizens out to be crazy gun loving nuts? Seems to me that the left has positioned more "boogeymen" in this debate than anyone else. Don't believe me, then why on earth would the DHS be working with a company in Minnesota that makes shooting targets of elderly people, children, and pregnant women to desensitize LEOs to shooting them?
https://www.google.com/search?q=pregnant...

What is the Sheriff's agenda? He walks around with a cowboy hat and leather vest like some character out of the old west, or maybe Texas. He obviously wants to stick out and be seen and heard. His public service message could have been toned down. I believe it was a calculated message meant to incite with the previously quoted phrases by others. He could have explained his message once in media, but instead has spent the last couple weeks on no less than 20 TV and radio interviews. He also graciously excepted an invite to Glen Beck's show where he explained that he is not accountable to the Washington DC, The Whitehouse, or Madison Wisconsin. If his true intent was meant to protect the Milwaukee citizen that would be fine. But, if he is using his position to promote his personal opinions or pro gun stance then he should not be using public dollars to do so. I am also thinking he might be using his position to promote his name to land a bigger job elsewhere. I guess we will have to wait and see what the Milwaukee elections bring for him in 2014. Then we will see what the people in Milwaukee really think.

Boo friggin hoo! Every time the President gets up and talks about anti-gun stuff its on the taxpayers' dime. Get over it! Way to go Sheriff Clarke!

Walter, the obvious solution here is to move out of Milwaukee, but don't forget your guns !

RAF,
AWWW. Sounds like you've gone and filled your diaper again. I guess by typing the word "false" in all caps it makes you feel even more correct. Well, you're not. A feeling is a feeling. It's not false or true. I never said that the PSA would lead to a shooting over a petty argument or a confused and senile old person shooting someone who they perceive to be a danger. My point is the PSA may very well lead to law suits trying to connect the PSA to the shooting. If you had any critical thinking skills, any at all, you would recognize that. That is why it was irresponsible for the Sheriff to release his opinion as a radio ad. Whether or not my perception of the ad as a warning and call to arms is what he intended is immaterial. If someone else has perceived it similarly and turns a gun on an innocent out of fear and then the family of the person who was gunned down sues the county, whether the plaintiff is successful or not, the county potentially remains on the hook for a rather expensive legal ordeal. Then once the first one happens, the floodgates could open especially if there's a settlement or outright victory for the plaintiff. All this is is a case of a hothead gun romanticizing sheriff (just look at all the interviews he's been giving, he's a kook) overstepping his bounds and opening himself, his department and his county to possible financial costs on a large scale as well as a distraction that a police force can ill afford. So you can capitalize all the words you want, RAF. It doesn't take away from this sheriff's obvious attempt to become the next Joe Arpaio, more celebrated for infamy and charges of corruption than effective leadership.

"It's no longer a spectator sport"? "I need you in the game"? This warning and call to action is dangerous.
-
Warning? Are you really that clueless walter? Advising people about personal safety, to socialist's, is now labeled "dangerous"

"Violent crime has been trending downward for years. This is simply a tool to spread paranoia and sell more guns."
-
A tool to spread paranoia? Is that the same tool you used declaring his PSA would lead to people being shot over grass?

"He's saying that police department budget cuts and furloughs automatically equate to increases in crime."
-
More FALSE statements by people with the inability to discuss the facts of what is REALLY stated.

"It's not false because his words evoked a response in me. You can't judge the truth or lack of truth in an autonomic response. A response just is. His words made me feel that we are all in eminent danger and it's time to fight back."
-
Walter I don't care what you "feel" I do however have the right to respond to FALSE and completely INACCURATE lefty talking points posted by a socialist who continually refuses to discuss issues based on facts and not "feelings".

Like wasp says the only way to follow Sheriff Clarke's advice is to have guns loaded and in hand waiting for the bad guys to come....oops.
http://www.lex18.com/news/deputies-pulas...

Sheriff must be repub. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013...
When are people going to get that more people are killed by their own guns in homes? Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

*imminent* danger that is

RAF,
"It's no longer a spectator sport"? "I need you in the game"? This warning and call to action is dangerous. Violent crime has been trending downward for years. This is simply a tool to spread paranoia and sell more guns. He's saying that police department budget cuts and furloughs automatically equate to increases in crime. What are his sources for that statement?
I didn't falsely utter anything. You can't really utter when posting anyway. Utter implies speech not typing, but anyway. It's not false because his words evoked a response in me. You can't judge the truth or lack of truth in an autonomic response. A response just is. His words made me feel that we are all in eminent danger and it's time to fight back. You have to remember RAF, as you so eloquently pointed out, we're all just different people with differing ideas and ideals.

This headline is a bit of a joke and was written to try and make the gun debate appear one sided. Every time some politician goes on an anti-gun tirade does the gazette run a headline "tax payers footing the bill for anti constitutional rights grabbing"? Exactly how much tax payer money has been wasted in an outright attack on our constitutional rights? The sheriff only asks people to take accountability for their own safety. People who think that the police have a legal obligation to protect you should face reality. The supreme court has ruled that depsite that neat little slogan "to protect and serve" on the side of the cop car, police have to legal duty to provide police services or protection to individuals. First in 1981 in Warren vs. DC, then again in 2005 in Gonzales vs. US.

Have I ever put a bullet into someone? No, I haven't and hope to never have to do so. That said, If it were to come down to it, I would much rather do that than let some scum bag hurt someone I care about. Wouldn't hesitate at all as a matter of fact.

Walter FALSELY uttered, " Basically telling people that it's only a matter of time before an armed thug attempts to invade their home is irresponsible. "
-
Nothing in the ad said this, in fact I'll post it so you can read and hear for yourself. Perhaps then you will take the time to think for yourself what REALLY was said. Can't wait for a single post of yours that doesn't "echo" talking points regurgitated from wacky lefty sources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEibmLh5...
"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk 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 could 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. We're partners now. Can I count on you?"

wasp,
Thank you for being a gunowner with a little bit of sense. Some people just might brush past the idea of taking a little time for introspection about what it means to put a bullet or bullets into another human being if the county sheriff is telling them, "I need you in the game."

birdman,
If you're referring to me calling him an idiot, he is. You proved why when you agreed with me that this opens him up to some potentially significant legal ramifications. Is that part of the system messed up when someone can blame shift for their own personal actions? Sure is, but the system is the system. Clarke should know that and think about it before opening his mouth up and then putting it on the air. Now that we know the ads were paid for with taxpayer dollars, someone could sue Clarke, the department and Milwaukee county. More than likely a few someones will try. Like I said, agreeing with the message is one thing, but the method of delivery was very irresponsible.

RAF,
That's a good story about what the PSA is talking about. Unfortunately, here's what also happens.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/glenn-14...
The ad itself is little more than fear mongering. Basically telling people that it's only a matter of time before an armed thug attempts to invade their home is irresponsible. Clarke also went on Alex Jones and declared that he refuses to confiscate the guns owned by private citizens. The thing is no one has told him to do anything like that. He is delusional. He also said he thinks that a second American Revolution is coming over the gun control issue and that the US government (with their tanks, fighter jets, drones, missiles and aerial bombs) is only kept in checked by the fact that civilians remain armed. Riiiight. I'm sure his delusions are probably why he made that ad. Or maybe there was a nice deposit into his bank account from the NRA.

From a gun owner this guy is a goof. For all you wild west cowboy wannabes out there, a few things to consider. First of all have any of you folks ever really shot anyone? If you haven't, talk to someone who has, and you might find it has lasting consequences. Most people won't be able to pull the trigger when the time comes and the intruder already knows what they are going to do. You are going to be caught by surprise. This has been a problem even with our trained military, well known, not much discussed. If his advice were to be effective, it would require someone to have a loaded gun at hand all the time. How will that work with children in the house? Just silliness in my opinion. If our situation is that desperate I think we need more police. But I don't really think it is.

The threat - - no, the CERTAINTY - - of law suits connected to Sheriff Clarke’s safety message is real. Our society has lowered itself to this sad condition by steadily promoting the notion that each of us is somehow a victim of Life Circumstances. WalterR and others who share his worry already know that.
. . .
I’m surprised that there has not yet been a law suit against some municipality because police did not arrive quickly enough to avert an assault or attempted murder.

“WalterR,,,”, you and other posters who must revert to childish name calling win few sympathizers with your bullying. Your doing so is consistent with the heavy-handed tactics of the U.A.W. as suggested by your “pen name” .

Truth is, poliice CANNOT arrive swiftly, as most posters to this story clearly understand. Ask the family of the dead Madison woman (within the last couple of years...her 911 call was prominently referred to in the media).
. . .
It seems quite reasonable for Sheriff Clarke to point out this reality to citizens in his county. I would be very comfortable with our own Sheriff Spoden doing the same thing. Regularly.
. . .
Perhaps this should be done state-wide - - wipe away the illusion that many people hold, thinking they are far safer than they are. Maybe the recent strangling victim in Janesville would be alive still, had she heard and heeded Sheriff Clarke’s reminder.

Walter, Sheriff Clarke just wants the old man and grandma to be on an equal footing with all those kidz armed with 9mm's (or the guns stolen from the ATF sting operation - including a fully automatic M4 assault rifle) while they do their gangsta' drive-by shooting in Milwaukee County.

Mr. Obama's homeytown, Chicago, and his current crib, D.C., have the most restrictions disarming law-abiding citizens and the highest gun violence rates in the nation. Our President and Congress (motto: "We're from the Federal Government and we're here to help.") have decided to play fiscal cliff chicken and the resulting budget cuts will affect law enforcement.

Firearm sales have been through the roof since Mr. Obama mentioned needing more gun control during the October Presidential debate. It's difficult for firearms enthusiasts to keep up with their hobby as newbies keep cleaning out gun and sporting good stores like a plague of locusts in a Kansas wheat field. More people (both conservative and liberal) are waking up to the fact that this country's greatest problem is the Federal Government.

Let's see, $17,000 out of $84,900,000 = 0.00020024 of the Sheriff's 2013 budget was spent on this advertising. I wonder how much it cost to make that Homeland Security video which tells you that if you are kept disarmed at work by your employer or your government, when some nut job enters shooting, and you can't run fast enough, or hide well enough, to go after your gun-toting mental case attacker with a pair of scissors?

Just remember folks, you can attack with scissors, but don't run with them. Let's be careful out there.

This is what the PSA was talking about...

http://www.khou.com/news/local/21-year-o...

Before the grammar or morality police attack. I meant to say that I know it is not politicaly correct to call people who are mentally deficient or have mental illness crazy but if they are shooting at you you need to be able to defend yourself. Not to be able to is crazy!

He never said give crazy people ( I KNOW NOT THATS NOT P. C. ) guns or that you shoud shoot people you dislike or brandish your weapon around and intimidate your neighbors. He said be prepared to defend your self until help arrives I.E. the Sheriff or other law enforcement. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE CRAZY PEOPLE ( I KNOW NOT P. C. ) WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE. Lets get them the help they need not give up are right to defend ourself.

Walter I listened to the radio spot, more than once, he never said anything about shooting a person over standing on grass. I suspect if you took as much time actually thinking for yourself as you do echoing talking points of your socialist thinking clan members you just might be able to grasp what is real vs what is fear mongering paranoia.

thank you Sheriff Clarke!

So he should have said we need to urinate on yourself, puke or throw things at an attacker?
Average response time in Milwaukee is over 10 minutes. All he did was state the obvious, call 911 but be prepared to defend yourself while you wait.
Or you could always go outside and let off both barrels of your shot gun into the air to scare away the bad guys just like Uncle Joe says.

It's one thing to hold the belief. Believe whatever you want, but it is wholly irresponsible to publicly pronounce that belief especially when you are in a position of authority. He has made himself a sitting duck for law suit after law suit after law suit all at the taxpayers' expense. If you agree with what he said, I'm not surprised. Many people feel that way. If you agree with the method by which he delivered that message, you might have your "fiscal Conservative" credentials revoked. How many people do you really think were never going to arm themeselves until they heard this ad? It's silly. All the ad did was make some trigger fingers itchy. It's only a matter of time before the civil (perhaps even criminal) suits start getting filed.

My, but wasn't that a fine example of a non-partisan headline furnished by AP on this story! You can't tell one bit that the AP detests that sheriff, if you don't read it that is!

Clarke is a realist ,I totally approve on his view on personal safety. The law could be responding to a person in need of cigarettes like what just happened in Texas while you are being strong armed in your home,would you rather wait for the responding officer or the coroner ? Your choice, as it should be. I know what I would prefer.

And who paid for that failed recall election we had? The taxpayers of course. Why is this even news?

Go for it, Sheriff Clark, and I approve your message!

This sheriff is an idiot and soon enough some kid is going to get shot and killed for not getting off some old man's lawn and that old man is going to cite the sheriff's commercial. Then the parents of that dead kid will sue the county and then even more tax payer money will be wasted on the legal defense. For law enforcement to announce their uselessness is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps they should be disbanded and save the taxpayers a whole bunch of money. We'll just leave it all to street justice. A senile old man recently shot and killed a boy in Milwaukee because the old man thought the kid stole guns from him. There were no guns in the kid's house. Turns out the old man can't even prove these guns he thought were stolen were ever in his possession. I guess this is the kind of thing Mr. Sheriff thinks we armed civilians should just handle on our own. If you think somebody stole from you, shoot them dead in the street. Good advice, Mr. Sheriff sir. We'll solve our own investigations from now on.

Im glad for once the tax money is going for good use. I approve 100%

He is definitely doing the right thing so people understand! He tells the truth.

Does this imply that Barrett's pubic announcements are all free? Kudos to sheriff Clarke.

Sounds good, this sheriff is giving an intelligent public service announcement to help people avoid being victims. Good for him, I hope that he considers running for a higher office someday soon.