Nah.
This is their job, misleading info meant to whip people up.
‘Smash-and-grabs’ should not be called ‘looting’ because term is ‘racist’: Experts
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
This is their job, misleading info meant to whip people up.
Not only that, it is clear the "calling it looting is racist" stuff is actually the experts pointing out that because "looting" is actually a crime during an emergency (and yes, is used with a double standard in reporting during emergencies), deliberately calling planned smash and grabs "looting" is designed to throw out a narrative that these are some kind of mirror to rioting in the wake of the BLM protests last year.
It's just dishonest framing by the Sun through and through.
Not dumb. Willing.
You don't keep reading the Sun knowing that it is lying to you to make you feel a certain way without wanting to be lied to that way.
Pretty much.
I should add that there are probably degrees of theft under $950, so that the sentencing judge can still shit-wack the living hell out of a recidivist who comes up for the 15th time and is clearly part of a pro shoplifting gang. (I once acted for such a person. Her entire apartment was full of piles of stolen shit and she sold it to her "employer" who then re-sold the stuff through his own contacts.) Hard to imagine that that possibility isn't covered off.
As well, there are probably procedural and budgeting advantages for the DA in prosecuting a misdemeanour over a felony. In Canada, misdemeanours are not allowed jury trials. That fractionalizes the cost of prosecuting them. Same thing is likely true in CA.
"It always a slow day at The Toronto Sun", is the motto and creed of their existence.
I see no link to race, though. I'd agree, those outlets are likely using the wrong term, but then....it's a more buzzy headline word than organized theft. It's also an insult to organized theft because it's more like disorganized bum rushing theft. Kind a wordy though.
I think every day is a slow day at the Sun. I saw their paper in a gas station the other day. It couldn't have had more than 8 pages.
You should read the article and the comments - especially Valcazar's. The Sun article is very manipulative and involves juxtaposition of what the professors are saying with anonymous criticisms and editorial comments to give the impression that the profs are "PC idiots". In fact, the profs are saying stuff which is quite different than what is implied in the Sun piece. And one of the profs is a retired cop.
Gotta read those articles.
The race thing is kind of tangential.
Because "looting" would happen if there were break-ins and grabbing stuff like this during a riot or other emergency, using "looting" here (when that isn't happening) is trying to craft a narrative that this is in response to Rittenhouse and just more examples of how Black people are criminal and BLM is just an excuse to riot and loot.
That appears to be the point these experts were trying to make. (Or maybe only one of them, who was pointing out how media frames are important.)
From the article
" Looting is a term that we typically use when people of colour or urban dwellers are doing something,” Boyd, a retired cop, told KGO . "
So they brought race into this, not the Sun.
And their statement is incorrect.
Definition of Looting.
" The penal code defines looting as ‘theft or burglary … during a ‘state of emergency,’ ‘local emergency,’ or ‘evacuation order’ resulting from an earthquake, fire, flood, riot or other natural or man made disaster."
Now just because lately these emergency circumstances have existed around riots resulting from protests of people of color does not mean the terms entire historical use is now pinned to recent events.
Further the actual race of the assailants of looting in those recent circumstances can not even be determined, and were likely a mixed bag of everyone.
Therefore to even suggest that using the term "looting" is used to specifically depict people of color doing something, is factually wrong. Legally wrong, and is wrong from an Etymology stand point.
Stating such ignores these facts and is motivated strictly by ideology.
Now using the term "Looting" to describe the California crimes spree may be wrong from a Legal stand point, as it does not fit the Penal code definition of the term, but that was not the main point of the people quoted in the article.
So regardless of what the Sun tries to pepper through out their article, the over all point of it is correct.
These people mentioned in the article are more concerned about an ideological argument about race, which is preposterous, instead of the correct legal use of the term.
Gotta read those articles, and use critical thinking.
Its been a while that everything seems politically incorrect, itd over the top and needs to stop.
Last edited:
So try reading the article this way:
Lorenzo Boyd, a professor of criminal justice and community policing at the University of New Haven, and Martin Reynolds, co-executive director of the Robert C. Maynard Institute of Journalism Education, said the depiction of large-scale thefts and brazen burglaries at luxury retailers should not be labeled as looting.....
Boyd and Reynolds believe the term for these brazen burglaries should be “organized smash-and-grabs,”
That's the gist of what the two profs say. Other random quotes from the profs are taken out of context and thrown in to make it seem as if they are obsessed with nonsensical CRT issues. This is the first such quote.
“Looting is a term that we typically use when people of colour or urban dwellers are doing something,” Boyd, a retired cop, told KGO . “We tend not to use that term for other people when they do the exact same thing.”
Martin added that “people draw their own conclusions” when certain wording is involved.
There is no indication that this is the primary reason that the two criminology profs prefer not to use the term "looting". It's simply thrown in at that juncture by The Sun. Now what is happening in SF is in fact NOT looting. Looting is when groups of people take advantage of chaos and break into stores and take stuff. It's a specific definition. You got it right in your post.
What's happening in this fact situation is robbery or break-and-enter and it is not looting. So the two profs are correct. And I suspect that they said exactly what I just wrote when they were interviewed. The other comments are add-ons that they probably discussed in the course of a 30-minute interview and which The Sun simply cherry-picked and jammed in there. Totally out of context, I suspect.
The Sun then mixes in disapproval by randoms on Twitter to show that everybody thinks the 2 profs are really pompous, trivial idiots. That prompts you to agree with The Sun. And it worked. You got angry.
The Sun then adds in that theft below $950 was downgraded from felony to misdemeanour recently and suggests that this is to blame for the robberies. In fact, the criminal offences involved in the smash-and-grabs would be robbery and break-and-enter and not theft and the reclassification has nothing to do with the situation at all.
The entire piece is highly manipulative.
Say what you want, judging by the response of many board members, The Sun is very good at their job!
Then why was it even brought up when it has no basis in fact, law or long term history.
Be it the primary reason, the secondary reason, or a parallel reason is hardly the issue. The fact that this factually flawed, ideology based argument is being cited as a reason at all is the problem. Which is the underlying thrust of the article regardless of the sensationalist practices that the Sun, and most other news sources, employ to jazz up the commentary.
The sources were unable to keep their ideological biases out of an interview that should have had nothing to do with ideology.
Those biases clouded the logic of the one ideological argument in and of itself, so now we are supposed to believe that those ideological biases didn't cloud the motivation behind the entire reason for them even bringing this subject up?
Why is it flawed or ideology based?
The quote is simply that:
“Looting is a term that we typically use when people of colour or urban dwellers are doing something,” Boyd, a retired cop, told KGO . “We tend not to use that term for other people when they do the exact same thing.”
Martin added that “people draw their own conclusions” when certain wording is involved
All the interviewee is saying is that people tend to assume that urban dwellers or people of colour are involved when the term "looting" is used. That's probably an accurate, neutral statement in California where there have been race riots and ensuing looting. There was notorious looting after the Rodney King riots.
It would not be accurate to say this in Ontario, but these profs are American and referring to American norms.
I showed why in my post 4 posts up. I am not going through the entire logic exercise again.
can't be bothered reading when the message is pretty clear: let's whine and complain!
