Again I will post this quote:

Crime will expand according to our willing to put up with it.

California has put up with looting and it has expanded into lethal violence.

I can almost guarantee that no first time looters shoots a security guard.  This is the work of a seasoned and emboldened looter.

Had California not allowed the situation to get this bad, this would not have happened.

Now here is the question I have.  The demographic of the looters is well known.  So much so that we’ve been told not to use the term “looting” to describe this mass theft because of its racist implications.

Given the identity of the victim and the probable identity of the looter shooter, how much traction do you think this story will get in changing California’s response to the looting.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

7 thoughts on “California looters take a life”
  1. Yes, the word “looting” is obviously racist. Because obviously.
    So is “pillaging”; causal use of that word offends my Viking ancestry!
    And “sacking” is offensive to Visigoths.
    But, then, the whole idea that taking property could be a crime is offensive to Marxists. So we’ll need to purge the language of any terms suggesting that nonconsensual property transfer is in any way problematic.

  2. It will take hundreds of examples like this to get any traction. And it will have to happen to the upper end of the social/financial spectrum. When they feel the impact of their choices, they might act.

  3. It was Oakland. They are ‘professional looters’ out there. And do not fear using a weapon, because they can ‘disappear’ into the hood and nobody will rat them out.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.