People have a right to violently protest

The argument

People who show violence in their protests are likely to report feelings of contempt for political adversaries whom they believe are responsible for the injustice in their community. It has been proven repeatedly that people don't violently protest right away. There is a point where corruption keeps winning, and people can't help but violently protest from a deep sense of helplessness for things to change. In 2020, we have witnessed a rise in protests worldwide against corrupt systems and police brutality. People's anger is justified because their peaceful protests have been met with random attacks by the authorities, such as pepper-spraying the crowd, ramming vehicles into the protestors, and teargassing them. In the US, White people are most likely to be armed during interactions with the police than Black people, but Black people are three times more likely to be killed by the police than White people. Racial injustice against Black people in the US is a prominent example of why marginalized communities need a stronger push of violent protest to have their voice heard. Nonviolent tactics in protests can be effective but violent protests also help change policies and fight injustice. For instance, the officers who murdered George Floyd were arrested because of people violently protesting to fight for justice.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The government has the right to stop protests if people are destroying government property. Violent protests are outlawed everywhere, and in the US, the First Amendment states that people have the right to "peaceably" assemble, so violence in protests are prohibited. Protestors are allowed to protests for any cause they believe in, but there should be no violence that could harm people, property, or businesses.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That violence tends to come late does not make it a right: the premise explains why people reach for it, which is a causal account rather than a justification, and helplessness is a state of mind rather than a licence. [Rejecting P2] Justified anger and permissible action are separate questions. Police violence against peaceful protesters is a wrong done by those officers, and it does not establish an entitlement to harm third parties — the shopkeepers, residents and bystanders who bear the cost, and who in the neighbourhoods concerned are often the people the protest is for. [Rejecting P3] The causal claim is asserted rather than shown. Charges were brought amid a mass mobilisation that was overwhelmingly peaceful, so crediting the arrests to its violent fraction singles out one element of something far larger — and research on protest outcomes generally finds nonviolent campaigns more likely to win their demands.