Effects of illegal acts by protestors

George Floyd protestors

Really? By any means necessary?

Let's hope not

Parts of the far left have gone so far in the political circle that they are now all but indistinguishable from the far right. ....  When there are people who espouse [major crimes including murder and bombings] .... then we are dealing with people who are merely hiding psychosis behind a political mask. The masses of people recoil in horror and say, "Our way is bad and we were willing to let it change, but certainly not for this murderous madness--no matter how bad things are now, they are better than that." So they begin to turn back. They regress into acceptance of a coming massive repression in the name of "law and order." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, 1971

Most illegal acts in otherwise lawful protests are either attacks on other people or property destruction. The latter is not as serious as physical assault of a person. The law generally does not treat the two as equivalent, with assault or attack on a person generally being a more serious infraction. If the amount of property damage is too high, the crime can elevate from a misdemeanor to a felony. The laws vary from state to state.

Breaking a window in a protest arguably is a form of speech. It is illegal speech, but speech nonetheless. It's sort of like flag burning. That is protected speech, but arguably stupid, inarticulate, usually counter productive speech. A question one can ask is exactly what does the act of breaking a window convey? Say there's a peaceful, legal protest with hundreds of people protesting unwarranted-unacceptable police use of force, but a few bored local hooligans join in for kicks. The most common crime perpetrators in such protests actually are bored local hooligans. There's some empirical data indicating that most of the lawbreaking is not by Antifa or leftist radicals, but instead is by by bored locals, usually young men.

So, the bored hooligans throw some rocks and break windows causing about $10,000 in damage. What social value was in what those perpetrators did? What they did was (1) tarnish, undermine and discredit both the cause and the peaceful protestors themselves, and (2) provide ammunition for propagandists who then gleefully go on to smear the entire protest movement against unwarranted police acts and in the process convince millions of Americans that all the protestors are violent criminal socialists. That's what the illegal act (speech) of some bored hooligans have actually done in the real world since George Floyd was murdered.

But do the analysis differently. Change the hypothetical (which I believe is the actual dominant reality) to one where a few of the peaceful protestors lose control and break windows causing about $10,000 in damage. What was the social value of that lawbreaking? Specifically, what did their speech or behavior do? It did even more damage than what the hooligans did in the first hypothetical. Some of the lawbreakers actually were peaceful protestors until they lost control of their emotions and behaviors. That kernel of truth adds to the power of the propaganda that smears all the protestors as violent criminal socialists who propagandists excitedly portray as major threats to law and order everywhere.

In response to the massive threat the violent criminal socialists are portrayed as being, republicans in 35 states are writing or have passed laws making lawbreaking in otherwise legal protests more serious offenses. In at least one state, a law protects a person in a car who runs down and kills protestors illegally blocking a street.[1] That's right -- under the right circumstances you can use your car to kill protestors who are blocking a street. (it's an honor culture mentality thing that's akin to stand your ground laws that protect a killer who was merely standing their ground and felt threatened by someone) That is part of the authoritarian propaganda-fueled backlash that breaking windows, committing arson and looting during otherwise peaceful protests is unleashing on American society.

That's why one can argue that all lawbreaking by anyone should be prosecuted in all otherwise peaceful legal protests.

Peaceful legal protests. That raises another question. What about illegal protests? What then? Well, if a protest is illegal from the get go, all the people can be smeared as violent criminal socialists and exuberantly portrayed as major threats to law and order. What if the states pass laws that simply neuter protesting by requiring the protests to occur in places and times that render the protest less effective? Then what?

Questions: Does what Saul Alinsky wrote in 1971 about far left radicalism apply at least somewhat to how street protests about police brutality are being treated in 2020 and 2021? Although breaking windows and looting stores are not the same crimes as assassinations and bombings, are there parallels in how society is reacting, e.g., by passing laws that clamp down on street protest illegality in the name of law and order?

Footnote: 

1. Vox writes: 

The most recent example of such a law came Wednesday, when Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a new law that effectively allows drivers to hit people with a car in a specific set of circumstances.

Under the new law, an Oklahoma driver will no longer be liable for striking — or even killing — a person if the driver is “fleeing from a riot ... under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death.”

That raises questions. What is a riot? Someone breaking windows in an otherwise peaceful protest? What is a reasonable belief? For example, a Proud Boy wants to kill some George Floyd protesters, so he drives gently into a crowd and some protesters bang on his car with their fists because he is being an asshole. So he then responds by hitting the accelerator and mows a bunch of 'em down, killing two people and grievously injuring three. Later he claims he had a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect himself from serious injury or death, he walks free and goes on to regale his Proud Boy friends with what good clean fun he had at the protest.

So many questions. So much social animosity and hate. So many far right haters willing to kill. But what about far left haters? Can they gently drive into a crowd at a rally for the ex-president and do the same God-awful thing?