How do we think about removing controversial statues in the US?

This movement is led by violent, angry mobs.

Question: How do we think about removing controversial statues in the US?
Position‹3 of 5›: "We must not remove these statues!"
Argument‹3 of 4›: This movement is led by violent, angry mobs.

We should not consider this movement credible, because it is led by an angry, violent mob. Protesters are not toppling statues because they want racial injustice to end. They simply want to be destructive. Another variation of this view argues that this is an intentional attempt to attack Western democracy.

The argument

Although the statue removal movement is presented as an attempt to rid our public spaces of racist symbols, it is actually just the work of angry, violent mobs. Since the movement lacks any meaningful leadership or organization, it is likely that people are using it as an excuse to be destructive. It is wrong to assume that this movement operates from a cohesive principle or ideology. Rather, it is comprised of frustrated people who want to express their anger. If statue removal reflected an organized social movement, protestors would rally for these monuments to be removed by their elected officials in a legal, appropriate way. Instead, they take matters into their own hands and destroy public property. Given society's recent suffering because of the coronavirus, it is likely that this movement is simply a means of expressing anger and unrest. People are scared about the future. They are angry about the government's handling of this crisis and want to express it. Tearing down monuments is currently an acceptable outlet for violence and anger, so people are seizing this as an opportunity to blow off steam. A variation of this view argues that this movement is indeed led by angry, hedonistic mobs, but they have intentional, malicious purposes. They do not actually want to remove racist symbols, and they are not looking for an outlet for their anger. Instead, this mob wants to destroy liberal democracy and Western civilization.

Premises

[P1]The statue-removal movement lacks coherent leadership, organization, or guiding ideology. [P2] A genuine social movement would pursue removal through legal channels and elected officials rather than destroying public property. [P3] The destruction is better explained as angry, frustrated mobs using statues as an outlet for unrest over the pandemic and government failures. [C] Therefore, we must not remove these statues, since doing so would reward violent mob behavior rather than principled reform.

Counter-arguments

Supporters of removal reply that the movement is neither leaderless nor merely destructive. Much statue removal has proceeded through exactly the legal channels the argument demands — city councils, commissions and democratic votes — and the small number of monuments toppled by crowds typically followed years of such petitions being ignored. Characterising a broad, multiracial protest movement as an undifferentiated 'violent mob' erases its stated aims and organisation, while attributing it to pandemic frustration or a plot to destroy Western civilisation substitutes speculation about motive for engagement with the substantive claim that these particular monuments honour figures who defended slavery. Isolated property damage, they argue, does not define or discredit a movement's principles.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Much of the movement has clear organisation and leadership and has pursued removal through councils, commissions and democratic votes, so it is not merely a leaderless mob. [Rejecting P2] Many statues have in fact been removed through legal channels; crowd action typically followed years of those channels being ignored, not a refusal to use them. [Rejecting P3] Attributing the movement to pandemic anger or a plot to destroy Western civilisation is speculation about motive that ignores its stated aim of removing monuments to slavery's defenders.