According to some creative minds in media and academia, there's a new politically correct term for looting.  Those who believe in the magical power of linguistic reform have decided that looting is a racist term.  Therefore, if must be euphemistically transformed in order to be non-offensive to those who smash storefront windows and doors, run through retail establishments, and steal everything in sight.

Lorenzo Boyd, a criminal justice professor at the University of New Haven, said: "Looting is a term that we typically use when people of color or urban dwellers are doing something.  We tend not to use that term for other people when they do the exact same thing."

Martin Reynolds, co-executive director of the Robert C. Maynard Institute of Journalism Education, added: "This seems like it's an organized smash-and-grab robbery.  This doesn't seem like looting."

Once again, those who have no experience outside a college library have found a way to minimize the plight of those who actually work for a living.  Imagine if your contribution to society was to explore dictionaries and thesauruses in order to discover new ways to shield criminals from public condemnation.  You could spend all your time inventing words and phrases to provide cover for the most violent and larcenous reprobates in the country.

After all, it won't affect you because you're sitting comfortably in your office, tapping away on the keyboard, as employees of those looted stores are being assaulted and kicked to the ground.  The City by the Bay has been the scene of several rapacious lootings, with businesses losses numbering in six figures.  Yet the best they can get from law enforcement is an argument over the racial connotation in the use of words.  When one police chief called it "looting," he was quickly chastised by some in the media and others in the constabulary.  Sergeant Christian Camarillo, a San Jose police spokesman, said it should not be called looting because it's an organized robbery.  I feel certain that those store owners felt relieved when they realized they had been robbed rather than looted.

All of the foregoing, plus the increase in homicides, rapes, and other felonies, makes it clear that our government is unable to protect us from criminals.  And the criminals know it!  Debating the use of words while brazen thieves are ransacking some of the most expensive stores in the country is similar to General Milley saying he wants to understand white rage and teach Critical Race Theory at our military academies while the Taliban was taking over in Afghanistan.  How much of this psychobabble can we tolerate before kissing our country goodbye?  Are we obligated to repetitiously reiterate that criminals come in all colors?  Does anyone think the owners of those ravaged stores give a rat's rear end about the skin pigmentation of the thieves?

They just want to know what can be done about this latest crime wave.  If it's organized, how can anyone know when or where the next raid will occur?  In addition, when it does occur, what can be done to stop it?  Liberal newscasters are making it clear that no one should be shot for stealing.  They tell us life is more valuable than property.  Although we can generally agree with the reasoning, we must also ask ourselves how much we will accept before we say, "Enough!"

Incidentally, why would the criminally inclined stop their pursuit of valuable merchandise if the law has no power to stop them?  With leftist district attorneys refusing to prosecute larcenies below a certain amount, how can cops arrest the lowlife running out of a store with a handful of stolen goods?  Should they carry a calculator to add up the total before uttering the Miranda warning?  It's obvious that there aren't enough police officers to arrest thousands of looters who may decide to orchestrate a reign of terror on stores from coast to coast.  Those street thugs have figured out that the odds are in their favor, so why shouldn't they enrich themselves with purloined goods?

We must bring back the days when sound reasoning, rather than radical posturing, was used to protect citizens.  Let's recall the "broken windows" principle of law enforcement, ushered in by NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani and police commissioner William Bratton in the 1990s.  It states that visible signs of crime, antisocial behavior, and civil disorder create an environment that encourages more serious crimes.  Also, let's keep in mind that they were referring to vandalism, loitering, public intoxication, fare evasion, etc.  Enforcing punishments for those infractions helped to significantly reduce the crime rate in that burg of 8 million residents.

What we have now is way beyond broken windows!  If these crimes are not stopped, we may be facing the deadliest crime wave in history.  I wonder what euphemism will be used to explain that.

Image via Pixabay.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.