This isn't the whole story.

Look back at the 1960s and you still see countless acts of violent resistance, student, worker, and race riots were common place, and even MLK didn't go so far as to outright condemn rioting or other acts of violence. Yes, he personally pursued a path of non-violence, but he understood that it was just a component of a broad multi-faceted struggle for legitimacy.

The narrative that non-violent action was the key tipping point is a narrative that has since been spun by the media and the United States Federal Government with the intent of castrating social movements, ridding them off their potency and inertia.

If you look at Gandhi in India, you will find the same situation. Gandhi himself in his personal letters and journals admitted his commitment to non-violence was a tactical choice, not a moral conviction.

The point is that social change, real social change has never happened through non-violent means alone for the simple fact that the power of the state and capitalism is predicated on violent suppression. Non-violent demonstrators need the impending threat of mass civil unrest and violence for their demands to be heard, because no force has ever in the history of mankind given up power because they were asked nicely.

Everyone is free to conduct themselves how they wish, and resist power in a way that aligns with their beliefs and values, but the line must be drawn when we start condemning the resistance of others.

It is not my place to tell someone who has been crushed by the violence and brutality of a horrific system, who has watched and waited their whole lives for the world to get better, only to see their friends, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, neighbors and colleagues get trampled again and again that they are wrong for deciding to resist the brutality of the state with their own violence, it's as simple as that.