FWIW, arguments like this come across as a craven justification that is motivated by pure partisanship. We've all seen the videos. Trying to justify looting only undermines the defense of peaceful protest.

At what point is looting the response to wealth inequality. Does looting ever become justified when the feedback loop of lobbying, plutocracy, and tax code get out of control?

Looters, rioters, and arsonists would have a stronger arguments if their attacks were targeted, and not against small businesses and local grocery stores. Vandalizing Gucci and Dior sends a very different message than destroying single location restaurants.

Comparisons of this to the Boston Tea Party omit that it was an extremely targeted attack that allegedly self policed against collateral damage to other businesses.

"The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking." - John Adams

How is my justification craven - "lacking in courage or cowardly"? What do you think I am hiding from? I am open and forward about my desire to abolish cops and prisons to anyone who asks.

What is willfully ignorant is pretending violent protest does not (also) achieve results, or that violence can never be justified without "undermining" peaceful protest. Both are legitimate.

> We've all seen the videos.

Yeah, of cops murdering people for decades. You want craven? It's anyone who capes for anything the cops are doing now, including any negative discussion of looters.

Fuck the police. Once we're done with that, we can talk about your broken window.

Street violence always ends up benefiting the State. Looting plays right into the hands of the State justifying a military response to civil unrest. Nothing’s going to push a moderate to the right like an angry mob outside their door. And there are a lot more of them than there are of you.