Regardless of issue, it begs the question…

Is it disingenuous to accuse looters and rioters of hijacking a peaceful protest, knowing it’s being done…yet continuing to hold protests KNOWING it will be done anyway?

Isn’t it odd that ‘protesters’ always seem to choose areas most attractive for looting?

Wouldn’t any honest protester want to neutralize that by holding protests elsewhere, if not for the concern of looters hijacking their issue, then concern for their own safety?

At that point, isn’t it accurate to state failing to do so constitutes aiding-&-abetting?

And shouldn’t local governments be accountable, since they control the venue? Before the typical Leftist heads begin exploding (these are Leftist cities burning), hear us out.

First, cities and towns are within their right to issue protest permits for SPECIFIC areas; especially important to do so, in order to protect the rights (and property) of everyone.

Second, it’s of paramount importance…to minimize escalation.

Issuing a permit authorizing a protest in a specified area that reduces the elements of escalation (crammed spaces, rich stores for looting, etc) would serve that purpose.

Any OFF-SITE looting or rioting could then be handled as necessary, without concern over the safety or freedoms of peaceful protesters…because they shouldn’t be there.

Rioters and looters are criminals…

…providing them cover and opportunity is aiding-&-abetting…and, yes, we include in that charge local government officials, as well as knowing protesters making it possible.

How hard is this to understand?

Protests are a fact of life – when did common sense get thrown aside?