WaPo Columnist Slams Opponents of Ferguson Looting: Think 'Personal Property Worth More Than Life'

NewsBusters ^ | August 21, 2014 | Jeffrey Meyer

[2ndDivisionVet]

Clinton Yates, Washington Post online columnist and commentator for Washington D.C’s WTOP radio station, decided to wade into the controversy in Ferguson by slamming those who oppose the looting and violence in the wake of Michael Brown’s death.

On Thursday, August 21, during his “My Take with Clinton Yates” segment on WTOP, which is the main news radio station for the political class in Washington D.C., Yates insisted that someone who says “looting is never acceptable is implicitly saying that personal property is worth more than life itself.” Listen to MP3 audio here.]

The Post columnist began his rant by falsely claiming that opposing looting and supporting someone’s life are mutually exclusive:

I’ve gotten a lot of emails recently regarding my thoughts about the situation in Ferguson, Missouri. Many from former or current law enforcement officials arguing one of two things. Either they believe that the social contract that they think grants them near absolute power is something that everybody should buy into or they can’t understand why anyone would loot in the wake of a controversial death.

--

Material goods by definition are typically replaceable. Of course the violence associated with the act of vandalism and then theft is not desirable but think of it this way. In this case, saying that looting is never acceptable is implicitly saying that personal property is worth more than life itself.

Yates seems to think all looting is the same, which is not true. For example, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is one thing but looting a beauty supply store in Ferguson, Missouri is simply stealing and is a violent act. Yates fails to recognize that the looting in Ferguson has put the lives of numerous minority store owners in jeopardy. It seems that by supporting the looting in Ferguson, the WTOP commentator is doing the very thing he is accusing those who oppose looting of doing, minimizing people's lives.

Yates also took direct aim at so-called “trigger-happy” cops in places like Ferguson:

There’s an argument that if you believe that resulting to trigger-happy overzealousness is the lone way to guarantee your own safety then maybe law enforcement is not what you should be doing. They goal is to help people and they will then respect the marginal level of authority you’re given over their lives. If they live in fear, that’s what we call a police state.

It’s nice to know that Clinton Yates’ outlandish views are perfectly acceptable for D.C.’s main news radio station. Unsurprisingly, Yates is no stranger to making inflammatory comments on WTOP’s airwaves. Immediately following Michael Brown’s death, Yates called it “flat out brutality” so expect more commentary like this from the Post writer in the near future.

WTOP

My Take with Clinton Yates

August 21, 2014

CLINTON YATES: I’ve gotten a lot of emails recently regarding my thoughts about the situation in Ferguson, Missouri. Many from former or current law enforcement officials arguing one of two things. Either they believe that the social contract that they think grants them near absolute power is something that everybody should buy into or they can’t understand why anyone would loot in the wake of a controversial death.

On the first point, of course being a police officer is a difficult and risky job. But there’s an argument that if you believe that resulting to trigger-happy overzealousness is the lone way to guarantee your own safety then maybe law enforcement is not what you should be doing. The goal is to help people and they will then respect the marginal level of authority you’re given over their lives. If they live in fear, that’s what we call a police state. As for looting. Material goods by definition are typically replaceable. Of course the violence associated with the act of vandalism and then theft is not desirable but think of it this way. In this case, saying that looting is never acceptable is implicitly saying that personal property is worth more than life itself. I’m Clinton Yates and that’s my take.

[2ndDivisionVet]

That's what six years of Obama has wrought.

[ilovesarah2012]

Mental disorder.

[Saltmeat]

This idiot proves beyond a shadow of doubt that liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Paladin2]

Dear Clinton: just send all of your stuff to Ferguson for redistribution.

[PeteB570]

If I worked hard to earn the money to buy it - then yes, it is worth more than the hood rat that wants to steal it.

[OldSmaj]

He's not a journalist.

He's a full-blown, stinking, nit-witted, pillock, moron.

And he is everything that is wrong in these United States, today.

Liberalism.

Patooey!

[NEMDF]

It sounds like someone needs to pay a visit to this guy’s home and avail themselves of all of his worthless personal property.

[Saltmeat]

Looting is theft. Does this idiot leave his doors and windows unlocked and invite any and all to help themselves to his worldly possessions? He could do so and there would be no crime committed. It appears that he is willing to ignore crime.

[cripplecreek]

Let dem touch dos tings!

[Paulie]

I can’t stand the mindlessness of the left anymore.

[TheDon]

...“looting is never acceptable is implicitly saying that personal property is worth more than life itself.”

Actually the opposite is true, as a looter is liable to be killed by the person being looted.

The author is an idiot.

[Vigilanteman]

This idiot also proves that some of our MSM journalists will require Julius Streicher Therapy if we are ever going to restore decency in our country.

[bray]

Don’t you all realize he is morally superior to all of you. They should make a statue to his superiority.

Pray America wakes

[ColdOne]

I feel the same way.

[Malone LaVeigh]

implicitly saying that personal property is worth more than life itself.

I suggest that this fool petition whatever bank he does business with to remove all armed guards so that anyone wishing to make a forcible cash withdrawal can do so without risking a loss of self esteem.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's not mindlessness.

It's thoughtfully derived to be whatever validates the trust and faith that they invested in Obama.

It doesn't have to make sense, it only has to keep the facade that Obama is the best president ever.

If that means that looting is good and just and a protected form of protest, then so be it.

-PJ

[maggief]

https://twitter.com/clintonyates/with_replies

Clinton YatesVerified account
@clintonyates
Newspaper columnist. Radio commentator. TV contributor. Magazine scribe. D.C. native. Proud American.

wtop.com/clintonyates
washingtonpost.com/clintonyates

[coloradan]

... but wait. Obama said that that storeowner “didn’t build that.” So the goods in the store are really public property, because “we all” built that. And public property *is* worth more than life, which is why government buildings are protected by military force. Checkmate, liberal.

[Pollster1]

someone who says “looting is never acceptable is implicitly saying that personal property is worth more than life itself.”

I'm okay with that. My property was purchased with my money, which was earned using my time and my effort (in other words, I traded a part of my life for that property). That property is worth more to me than the life of a predator who would take my property by force, even more so because that predator will otherwise prey on other innocent victims and take parts of their lives from them too. I value good over evil, and sensible individuals are perfectly qualified to tell the difference.

[Arm_Bears]

With the local constabulary there to prevent him from interfering as his stuff is carted away.