>>117671797So, I'm looking at the data, and I can confirm that it's just flat out wrong, and your article is misleading. For one, it doesn't actually break the events up by "violent vs peaceful", but rather
>battles>violence against civilians>strategic developments>riots>protestsGrand Rapids, Lansing, and Detroit, among a few other cities in Michigan, are all listed as just "protests" with "riots", but there were battles with the police in all three, and "violence against civilians" in all three. But, according to the article
>defined as demonstrators fighting with police or with counterprotesterswhich is sort of misleading, because the police and protestors/rioters/looters DID fight in Grand Rapids, Detroit, and Lansing, and the protestors/rioters/looters fought with civilians, in addition to burning down buildings (well, attempting to in the case of Detroit). But because there weren't Proud Boys or whatever, it isn't "violent"? Buildings got burnt down, and people were dragged into the streets and beaten for being White.
So, right away, you're running into the "I'm losing an argument, shit shit shit let's google something and hope it helps me" problem, as you clearly haven't actually read this. In fact, it actually makes your side look worse, as it's literally lying about what people can plainly see in front of them. You can't go around lighting forest fires and bragging about doing so to punish Blormph voters, and then claim to be "peaceful". Not only does not one believe you (who exactly are you trying to convince? The people who saw cities set aflame, men dragged out of their cars and murdered, women raped in the streets?), but no one actually WANTS to believe you, because you're scum.
Also, there's a typo in the report, in that it describes George Floyd's death as a "killing", which is not the case, he died of a drug overdose after swallowing a fuckton of fentanyl. This is why he was having trouble breathing before the cops showed up.
