[monocasa]

At least in my city, for the protests I attended, this is about the right level of context. The ordering went

1) Peaceful protest

2) Police decide that they need to use extreme amounts of force to break up the peaceful protest

3) Unsavory elements use the cover of the ensuing chaos to loot/burn/tag/etc.

[Kiro]

In the Swedish BLM protests it was:

1) Peaceful protest

2) Unsavory elements started throwing things at the police

3) The police didn't respond with violence even though clearly attacked and provoked

We have problems with race profiling and other issues but I think the big focus on de-escalation in police training helps a lot to avoid the situation we see in the US.

[TouchyJoe]

In the German BLM protests it was:

1) Peaceful protest

2) Police declares protest is over, but people stay.

3) The police respond with violence

[microcolonel]

Wonder if it's "just property" when it's your own.

[monocasa]

I mean, yeah, it's a common thread in the US legal system as well, that property theft/damage doesn't give you the right to commit violent actions.

Even in castle doctrine states, it's only that their unwelcome presence on your property is an implied threat of violence, not that you're legally allowed to commit violence to protect property. That's why booby traps are universally illegal in the US.

So yes, compared to violence and particularly police brutality, it is "just property". Legally.

[SpelingBeeChamp]

Was there a dispersal order given before physical attempts to break up the protest? (I am not opining about its propriety (if it existed); just asking if it happened.)

[monocasa]

In some cases, but not in others.

We had a problem with the police doing drivebys and firing indiscriminately at crowds as police would drive off.