Comparing riots
About 50 protesters surrounded an officer and taunted him, threw things at him, challenged him to shoot them. He did not, but was able to summon six other officers. The crowd now swelled to as many as 300. They once again surrounded the officers, threw items at them, spat at them. Finally an officer was knocked down by an object, got up, and fired. The other officers than fired as well.
That was the history of the Boston Massacre (replace officers with sentries).
Since you would be wise to this one I won't try to hide the origin, but what is sneaking onto ships and dumping out 300 plus cases of tea but the wanton destruction of private property.
We had the draft riots during the civil war, the bonus army march on Washington that led to MacArthur bravely attacking thousands of unarmed veterans, and of course the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam protests. This debate isn't new.
I don't mean to fully equate today's events with the past, but the question of what is an acceptable protest is as old as the US. I'll guarantee there were colonists very disheartened by the riot that led to the massacre, or by the looting of 3 ships of their tea. At the time of both events the rebel side was not a majority opinion in the colonies as a whole. Especially people in the south were turned off by Boston's actions. But after a time, both events became heroic symbols. I don't think I've ever heard anyone today criticize the destruction of property involved in the Boston Tea Party.
I'd prefer the protesters not close major roads, and I certainly do not want them looting or throwing things at officers. The former is somewhat negotiable, the latter to me is not. As much as anyone, I want looters to be prosecuted. But about the shutdowns, I don't like being inconvenienced either. I was trapped trying to meet someone in Indianapolis last month when Indy shut down almost the entire city for a marathon. I get people don't like just sitting in their cars and watch people walk by down the road, I didn't like it then, I doubt I'd feel any better about it if they were protesters (nor do I think I would feel worse). But I also don't have a constitutional right to not be inconvenienced. I believe a protest movement has a certain right to conduct small civil disobediences to drive home their point. They should be willing to pay the price, the protesters who block a highway can face charges. That is part of the civil disobedience game. But I'm not sure it is indicative of anything more. I won't criticize them any more than I might criticize Sam Adams for his civil disobedience. If the public grows tired, they will lose in the court of opinion. If the public becomes sympathetic, they'll win. It is the system.