So what do we call this kind of political violence?
“Shoot that cop!” shouted one of the rioters on the streets of Oakland, California. “Shoot him!”
As violence broke out in that city following an unpopular jury verdict, I found myself asking again: What do we call this kind of political unrest?
By most accounts, the verdict was astonishing: an all-white jury convicted a Bay Area Rapid Transit cop of the minor charge of involuntary manslaughter, after the white officer shot an unarmed and subdued black man in the back.
The officer claimed that he meant to reach for his Taser.
Outrage, protest, serious questions about the criminal justice system that led to this outcome, all of those responses would be legitimate.
But for African-American rioters to smash storefronts, set fires, and mob streets — no. This from the LA Times:
As darkness fell about 8 p.m. and most of the demonstrators went home, a group of people dressed in black and wearing black masks moved toward police.
“It was clear that they were taking an aggressive posture. … We started taking a number of rocks and bottles,” [Oakland police chief Anthony] Batts said.
Roughly 80 people have been arrested so far.
And once again, this raises a legitimate question about the people in our society who are actually deploying violence as part of their political voice.
(A similar In Box discussion involving the recent G20 meeting in Canada can be found here.)
Imagine the national outrage if tea partiers rioted in the streets after a jury verdict went against their cause or their allies.
The political backlash would be extraordinary, and rightly so. National conservative leaders would be called upon to condemn the mayhem.
It strikes me that a similar statement is needed here from Democratic and African American community leaders.
Yes, they should call for a Federal probe into the way that this verdict was reached, and into BART’s record of interacting with minorities.
But they should also condemn unequivocally members of their activist community that resort to this kind of violence and intimidation.
WHOA! Wait a minute. “political unrest?”
Why do you consider this a political issue and why do Democrats have to answer for this?
The Tea Party is a political organization. I just don’t see how people rioting in the streets after this verdict are considered part of any political organization.
Are you actually implying that the Democratic Party was behind these people? If anything these folks are anarchists.
Why wouldn’t this be described as political? These people are protesting (violently) against a court decision in Oakland.
Regarding the linkage to the Democratic Party, I think I made my argument pretty clearly.
No, I don’t think Democrats organized or abetted this — of course not.
But when a core constituency of their party and movement uses political violence, it should be condemned.
We would expect the same from Republicans if a right-leaning group used violence, no?
–Brian, NCPR
I would consider it political in the sense that I believe these people feel aggrieved by the political process and the judiciary but it is reckless to associate this sort of thing with any organized political party without any sort of evidence whatsoever. Has anyone done any polling of these people to determine their political affiliation or even if they have ever participated in the political process?
And I just don’t understand how you can characterize this as a leftist group. I would characterize it as an outraged group, as an angry group.
This is an emotional reaction, not a political reaction in the way that you paint it. I’m trying to imagine a scenario of a right-leaning group in a similar situation but I can’t. Maybe you could help me out. I’m guessing that it is because right-leaning groups don’t feel powerless in the same way as these protesters, whatever their affiliation may be.
I think it is hard for a white person in this society to feel injustice viscerally in the way that people of color do. There is a new book out about the Henry Louis Gates affair that might be of interest.
KHL –
I feel like you are rationalizing, perhaps even justifying, this violence.
Obviously, emotion plays a role in events of this kind.
When Matthew Shepard was tortured and murdered because of his homosexuality in 1998, it was certainly visceral, emotional, and chaotic.
But it was also political — an act of hatred and intimidation aimed at gay people. (Is this the kind of “right-leaning group in a similar situation” example you were looking for?)
Which is why President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Act targeting hate crimes last year.
–Brian, NCPR
Did Republicans condemn the Shepherd lynching?
Shouldn’t ALL political parties condemn this kind of violence, no matter who is rioting? Tea party, Green Party, or any unified mob with (or even without) a clear political purpose.
A mob is a mob is a mob. A mob is just a variation of bullying.
No, we don’t need a group of “experts” to investigate anything.
I am tired of money be spent and paid to people who are not out of work to form a Blue Ribbon Panel and investigate yet one more thing.
Yes, let’s all condemn the violence and go forward to the next thing we are all so shocked about.
A core constituency of the democratic party was using political violence here? What exactly are you referring to… the fact that these rioters were African Americans?
Dave –
Yes, I am arguing that there is a distinct political and cultural link between the Democratic Party and California’s African American community.
I don’t think that’s particularly controversial.
And yes, I think when that constituency organizes a political demonstration that turns violent, it should draw criticism from community and party leaders.
This riot didn’t follow a sporting event. It followed on a political action, held to protest police brutality.
Obviously, I think this is the wrong way for a political argument to be made.
And I think that needs to be said unequivocally by the elected and community leaders (white and black) who represent the black community.
–Brian, NCPR
Brian, I am not rationalizing anything. I am not saying violence was justified.
I am saying that I don’t believe the rioters were political any more than the people who beat Matthew Shepard to death were making a political statement for the right.
It never crossed my mind that Shepard’s death was a political act. I always considered it an act of hate and fear.
I think Pete Klein is correct; “A mob is a mob is a mob.”
This whole discussion boggles my mind.
Brian said: “This riot didn’t follow a sporting event. It followed on a political action, held to protest police brutality.”
Is protest of police brutality a left-wing political position? I don’t think right-wingers like police brutality either.
A mob riots.
The mob consists of black people.
Black people tend to vote for democrats.
Therefore this is somehow related to the Democratic Party.
Is that the reasoning going on here?
Dave –
This wasn’t a mob.
By all accounts it was a political demonstration, held in response to a court decision involving a political issue (alleged police violence against African Americans) which has been a core concern for progressives and liberals since the Civil Rights movement.
That demonstration turned violent.
As readers of this blog know, I think progressives have a history of trying to distance themselves from cases where their constituencies and their causes are implicated.
Indeed, I think that’s happening with some of the comments here.
Rather than confront the fact that a traditional liberal/Democratic constituency turned violent while holding a political rally in response to a court decision they disapproved of, many of you suggest that there is no linkage to politics, and no political implication for the elected leaders (all of them Democratic) who represent this community.
Yet when largely white militias organize and use frightening rhetoric — even when their activities don’t lead to actual violence — progressives are very quick to insist that Republicans and conservatives are implicated.
I think that’s a double standard — a morally troubling one.
–Brian, NCPR
Brian,
I know you know I like to play with words and I know you do too.
A “demonstration” always has the potential to turn into a “mob” scene. All that is needed is for someone or several someones to stoke the fires and up the ante. When you take part in a demonstration, the risk is always there.
One could say, demonstrating is just a fancy word for bullying, much in the news.
It all goes back to the what the very young do when they throw a temper tantrum. I’m right. You’r wrong. My way or no way.
Personally, I prefer to keep my demonstrating confined to letters to elected officials, in person conversation and the ballot box.
But should we condemn these people as the violent scum they are or not?
Okay Brian, I have had to do a little research on this and I am still not convinced from the early reports but apparently there was some portion of the protest group that were purported anarchists.
If that group is what you consider “left-wing” then I must absolutely reject left wing violence.
The trouble is you are equating the Democratic party or even just liberal minded people with anarchists. A quick look at “anarchist” on Wikipedia shows that there is a wide spectrum of belief even among the anarchist community on the use of violence and a host of other issues. Who are these people? I don’t know them.
I guess that is the problem here, we lefties for the most part believe we belong to a movement that rejects the use of violence as one of our core beliefs and you want to lump us in with people who use violence and then you want us to reject them. Well, we already did! What more do you want?
Should we whip each other?
“More than an hour after the organized — and relatively peaceful — demonstration ended on Broadway, things began heating up” San Jose Mercury News
“UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTOR: I would like people to express themselves but try to be peaceful about it.” DemocracyNow
“In Oakland, more than 1,000 people gathered for demonstrations that were mostly peaceful, though as the night progressed, a small group of protesters broke windows, looted a Foot Locker” the Bay Citizen.
“Dave –
This wasn’t a mob.” Brian Mann
I believe you have been mis-representing the facts. There was an organized demonstration that was by all accounts mostly peaceful. The organized demonstration broke up and a mob took over.
The police expected this to happen and prepared for a mob.
“We did a pretty darn good job. So thank you so very much,” Oakland police Chief Anthony Batts –Oakland Tribune
“UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTOR: To hear involuntary manslaughter. It’s a slap to me, it’s a slap in the face to specifically African-American men in this country but also humanity in general. Michael Vick did two years for a dog being killed on his property. Johannes Mehserle is going to do two to four years for murdering a man execution style. There’s something wrong with the picture in my frame of reference.” DemocracyNow
This story is about race and that people of color feel helpless,abused, and mistreated in this society and you want to make it into some sort of indictment of liberal politics. Shame on you.
KHL –
Two points.
First, I’ve never been one to be intimidated by strawman stuff.
You want me to feel “shame” because I’m criticizing a group of people for using violence as part of a political demonstration.
Your lever is race and racial guilt. Sorry, no. Won’t play.
You say that I misrepresented the facts. But my original post included the facts and the complicated nuance of this story that you add in your reply.
I acknowledged that this was a complicated event, and acknowledged the legitimacy of the protesters’ anger.
Second, the very fact that you end with a liberal political apology for violent behavior (“this story if about race and that people of color feel helpless, abused, and mistreated…”) makes it clear that you yourself perceive this event as a political expression.
Yet you don’t want to wrestle with the violent dimensions of that expression. You want to dismiss it and trivialize it.
I happen to think that’s morally untenable.
The black community in Oakland California is politically powerful and has avenues for democratic, peaceful expression and recourse.
Which is — as I made clear in my original post — the avenue that most protesters followed.
But those who embraced violence should be condemned by their political leaders — just as conservatives who embrace violence should be condemned.
–Brian, NCPR
We are at a stand-off here.
You say: “But those who embraced violence should be condemned by their political leaders ”
I say, and I have read about a dozen versions of this from reputable news sources, that the political leaders have condemned the violence.
They were aware before the verdict that people would be upset. They brought extra police (80 officers who were due to be laid-off) in to try to avert or contain violent reaction. What more evidence do you need to show that the left is attempting to avert violence? In all the first person accounts I have read from the people whose stores were looted the blame was placed on criminal actors not with legitimate protesters. The protesters themselves were calling for non-violent protest.
So who is setting up the strawman?
Brian
“You want me to feel “shame” because I’m criticizing a group of people for using violence as part of a political demonstration.”
No, I believe you were setting up a strawman.
First, yes I condemn violence unless it is an act of self defense.
Now allow me to pick on the news media for something it does. Specifically, a word it loves to use.
Community. It’s a straw word. It’s usually used to talk about “the black community” and the “gay community.” Never hear much about “the white community” or “the heterosexual community.”
Personally, I have never felt I “belonged” to any community. Even further, I have never wanted to “belong” to a community. Why, because I know I am me and I reject “group think.”
Think about it and think about how “group think” is the source of most bigotry. You’ve got “Americans think,” Republicans think,” Democrats think,” “Whites think,” “Blacks think,” “Christians think,” “Muslims think,” and on and on and on. And its bull. It is the opposite of thinking. Group think is letting someone else do your think for you because you are too lazy to think.
Typo: Last sentence should read, “Group think is letting someone else do your thinking for you because you are too lazy to think.”
Thank you Brian for recognizing the double standard at play here. Where is Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of Race Inc. in condemning the violence? No where to be seen. Where are Speaker Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mrs, Fienstein and all the rest of the Democrat leadership in condemning the violence? Where is the major news media on this? Are they condemning the black community for their penchant for violence? Nope, they just spin things to give them an excuse- more victimhood which begets more feelings of racial injustice which begets more violence.
Someone was looking for a “white” example of something that would bring on this kind of violence. How about this- OJ Simpson. A black man murders 2 white people and gets away with it, scot free. The black community celebrates, but the whites didn’t riot. Why? Because there’s no money to made or power to be gained by anyone who orchestrates a white riot. There’s no Race Inc. waiting in the wings to fan the flames of divisive anger over every perceived slight, no demands for reparations for the sins of our great, great, great grandparents, no media ready to broadcast the hate speech of Race Inc. power brokers.
As long as we allow the Sharptons, Jacksons, Spike Lee’s, Nation of Islam/Black Panther types to flourish this will happen. They are nothing but the black version of the KKK and anyone who can’t see that is blind, politically correct, but still blind.
bret, i don’t know what’s wrong with you or what makes you tick but this is beyond the pale. al sharpton, jesse jackson, and spike lee are “the black version of the KKK”? i’m at a loss to put into words how reprehensible that is. i hope you’re ashamed.
My guess is that this post is a bit about Brian, and thus NCPR, proving they are “nonpartisan” and “fair and balanced” to the Bret’s of the world.
Where are the condemnation’s from the right when Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Angle, Tancredo, Palin, Bachmann spew their hatred and lies? Matthew’s has been trying for over two months to get a single Republican congressperson to disavow Rush Limbaugh.
Where were the condemnations from the “right” when tea partiers spat and shouted epithets at a black congressman?
“As long as we allow the Sharptons, Jacksons, Spike Lee’s, Nation of Islam/Black Panther types to flourish this will happen.” There’s a good example. Just how do we prevent the Sharptons, Jacksons, Spike Lee’s etc. from flourishing? Maybe 2nd amendment remedies?
“And once again, this raises a legitimate question about the people in our society who are actually deploying violence as part of their political voice.” Sure legitimate questions, unless the questions are about “patriotic” militia and tea party candidates actually suggesting, and in some cases actually moving towards, violent overthrow of a democratically elected government.
Yes, the black version of the KKK. They profit on the divisive hate they promote. What, you think they have pure motives? And PNElba, find anyone who actually heard those racial epithets or saw any spitting. That whole event has been shown to be a fabrication last I heard.’
How do we stop the Sharptons, Lee’s, Jacksons, David Dukes, etc.? By not playing into their game. By not continuing the divisive actions they profit from. By acknowledging mistakes have been made and moving on towards a brighter future. What both the black racists and white racists want is to keep the divisiveness alive and bubbling. They want to turn any issue into a racial issue. What ever the event if it can be turned to a racial issue it makes them money and gives them power. You won’t stop the fire by pouring more gas on it.
Bret, “last you heard”? You mean last you heard from Hannity or Limbaugh? There’s a perfectly good video showing the spitting. As for continuing divisiveness, it seems you might not be the best advocate for stopping divisiveness. But please fill us in on how we can make money by being racist. I’m sure we could all use a few extra dollars. I’m with hermit thrush, I don’t understand what makes you tick either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw
Go view this You Tube recording of a news report on the Black Panthers. Be advised there is some language and the leader of the Black Panthers advocates killing white babies. Tell me he’s one bit different than the Grand Wizard of the KKK.
I’m not a good advocate for stopping divisiveness? Really, and Al Sharpton is? Do some research friend. Just how do Al and Jesse and the gang make their millions? Just where is the Rev Al’s church or the Rev. Jesses? It’s on the TV every time there’s anything remotely racial they can profit from.
To be fair to PNElba I spent 45 minutes viewing several different news videos of the alleged spitting and slur event. Nowhere can you hear any slurs being yelled and the “spitting” event appeared if anything to be the flying spittle of a screaming protester. I’ve been deliberately spat upon numerous times and I saw nothing like a spitting event take place. I’ve also bee hit by flying spittle of an aggravated person many more times than that. It happens. Since no arrest took place, despite the Congressmens assertion he couldn’t ID the guy (that he had words with and with the Police Officer standing right there beside him who could ID the guy) I’m still of the opinion it didn’t happen as was reported.
Stinks that video works both ways, eh?
There is no doubt that this so called new black panther group is a hate group and should be tracked and treated no different from the KKK or Aryan Nations. That being said like the Aryan Nations they have a protected right to talk about and promote hating white people.
I don’t like Rush Limbaugh very much but he is not the KKK he is nothing like the KKK; he is simply very conservative and what he says is not always wrong, just like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are nothing like the New Black Panther party and what they say is often correct.
I think we should be careful about these distinctions. It seems to be part of our current speech to tar someone as the KKK or as supporting a radical Black militant group just because they are on one side or the other of the political spectrum or because they don’t condemn these groups “enough” whatever enough means.
These militant hate groups be they Islamic Radicals, KKK, Aryan Nations, New Black Panthers, whatever are intrinsically different in that they are thugs; they promote violence and murder and violent revolution, they are essentially enemies of this country and I think that is why the FBI keeps tabs on all of them or should be.
I’m sorry Mervel, you go and read the trash Sharpton, Jackson, Lee, etc. spew and tell me it’s not hate speech for profit. The same people here who willingly and repeatedly call down anyone slightly right of Ted Kennedy “right wing hate mongers”, etc. are somehow now going to defend the like s of Sharpton, the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, etc.? Give me a freakin’ break kids! If all the lefties can sit here and accuse conservatives, Tea Party types, talk radio of being little more than mind dead white supremacists and segregationists, not to mention heartless and cruel, then I’m perfectly within my rights to offer the opposing view, with the video to back it up I might add.
Not every Klansman/white supremacist, like Robert Byrd for instance, participated in beatings or lynchings. But they were still white supremacists. Not every black supremacist like Jesse Jackson or Spike Lee openly speaks of killing white people, but they’re still black supremacists. Both types of low life scum are racists, both types need to get a grip on good/evil and reality and both types, along with their Hispanics bedfellows, need to fade away. Hopefully that will happen within my lifetime.
I honestly think both of your comparisons are wrong. I do agree with you that somehow the Left has gotten itself into this juvenile habit of calling all conservatives hate mongers or right wing nazi’s and on and on. This type of speech came out of the 60’s and it is now just a habit, decent men and women are lumped in with violent groups simply because they tick these guys off and because they are conservative on economic or social issues; it really is like a bunch of playground bullies calling names.
However that does not make it right for us to say well what is good for the goose is good for the gander and lump for example Al Sharpton in with some of these violent groups.
Do they speak out against them enough? I don’t know probably not; but I don’t want to be told I am not speaking out enough against some group and then if I don’t be told I am supporting the group, that is simply not correct and a straw man.
When Sharpton, Jackson, etc. start condemning the Black Panthers, Minister Farakhan, the drug and street gangs, the obvious racism of people like Rev Wright, then I’ll rethink my statements. Until then they’re just racist agitators looking for power and money on the backs of the fools that listen to their rhetoric. That puts them in the same boat as all the other race based hate groups.
Well guys, I have had an epiphany and I am now fully convinced. This riot was the work of Leftist!
The evidence: an Footlocker store was looted of expensive sneakers; a beauty supply store was looted of hair extensions.
Now we all know that lefties are always protesting this and that, marching around on hot pavement carrying placards. They need comfortable footwear.
And all those pony-tails on old dudes; you don’t think they’re real do you?
khl, good thing there wasn’t any Cadillac dealers in the neighborhood! We wouldn’t want all those welfare mothers to have a cool ride.
no bret. to equate people like jesse jackson, al sharpton, and spike lee with the kkk and its legacy of bombings, lynchings, and murders is utterly, utterly disgusting. jesse jackson marched peacefully from selma to montgomery; kkk members murdered a woman who was supporting the marchers. they’re not the same. to even compare the two is, well, sick. i don’t like making these comment threads personal, but things this vile have to be stood up to. what is wrong with you?
It is just as vile to compare Rush Limbaugh or any Republican with the same things.
But violence on the left and racist groups like the new black panthers or anti-Semitic hate groups like Farrakhan’s or holocaust denier groups like Hamas is the same as the KKK. The far Left is just as hate filled and violent as the far right and has been responsible for just as much genocide in the world.
So this stuff cuts both ways and it is something that many on the left just don’t want to acknowledge.
This sort of violence and the police violence that lead to it should be universally condemned, not as a political statement by any party but as a moral statement by everyone. I agree with KHL that this was the act of outraged and aggrieved individuals. It was political only in that it protested a political culture which condones a different standard of justice for whites than for other races.
Brian,
You’ve been reading too much Politico-style Beltway insiderism about what is and isn’t the proper response to these things.
And the proper response, in that view, is always this: Whenever a black person does something bad, any person associated in the white conservative mindset with black people, on any level, must apologize.
Here is the order in which people must apologize to society for anything done wrong by a black person, and condemn the wrong, and renounce the wrongdoers, no matter how little association there is between the wronddoer and the person who must condemn them:
1. Al Sharpton must apologize. Then,
2. Louis Farrakhan
3. Spike Lee
4. Barack Obama
5. Donovan McNabb
6. Bill Clinton (except when his wife’s running against Barack Obama; then he’s cool)
7. Michael Moore
8. Sean Penn
9. Alan Colmes
10. Liberals
11. Progressives
12. Democrats
You kind of jumped Democrats to the head of the line here, but otherwise, you’re
…in good standing with the Beltway.
One other question. Brian, did you ever condemn the original police brutality here? Because it’s on YouTube, and it’s pretty cold-blooded, and you’re white, and so’s the officer. Just sayin.
PNElba, not Cadillac, think hybrid drive or better yet electric car!
Man, if there’s a riot near a Tesla dealership I am SO there!
Dang it Mervel! I baited the hook and you set it!
Hey folks, this is a real good example of what you all say about the Tea Party, Beck, Limbaugh, the NRA, pretty much anyone not of the progressive mindset.
Now you know how I feel when you people make outrageous statements calling the conservative movement racist or any of a number of other equally nasty terms.
Think about it my progressive, holier than thou, smarter than you dumb hick, friends. This is the SAME type of thing you do on a regular basis.
Anon, the officer who shot the guy resigned and faced his charges. The jury found him guilty of what in NY would amount to Criminally Negligent Homicide. What more do you want? Want him lynched by the mob? That would sure make some people happy.
I disagree with Mr. Bullard and KHL. This was not the act of aggrieved individuals. This was the act of criminals. Rioting is against the law last I knew. And if it was the act of racial frustration, then why did they attack shops owned by blacks? That makes no more sense than why stealing big screen TV’s is political speech if it occurs in a riot.
So this is a great debate. Everyone comes out of it believing exactly the same thing they believed going into it. Perfect.
Folks –
This isn’t easy stuff. Talking about it openly and with nuance is hard and complex.
And there are some bits of standard right-left pugilism here.
But there are also some interesting observations, moments of agreement, etc.
One thing that this thread illustrates is the value of wrestling with the ideas, not the ad hominem stuff.
Where people wrestle with the real, thorny questions — is this in fact political violence? what role does race play here? — I found a lot to chew on.
–Brian, NCPR
Violence like this is only political in the fact the majority of the group rioting tend to vote for one party in general. I seriously doubt the vast majority of rioters in this case give politics much thought beyond “I’m a victim and somebody owes me”. What bothers me is the excuses made by some here for a group that has a tendency towards violence and riot. I don’t know if it’s the fact they’re predominantly inner urban dwellers plays into it, but I think that’s worth looking at too. You don’t see too many riots in rural areas. I can’t help but wonder if too many people crushed into a small area breeds some type of group thought that drives people to this.
Mervel took the wind out of my sails but I would like to note that some people here are more than ready to find excuses for these actions, yet the same people will be among the first to throw rocks at the peaceful protests organized by the right. That to me is hypocritical.
It is interesting, I think in this case in Oakland; it is more about race than politics although they can be obviously intertwined.
Turn things around a little. Let’s say a North Country guy from say Ogdensburg is stopped by rez police in Ogdensburg, someone takes a video of the Mohawk police shooting the guy point blank when he is down and killing him. The reservation policeman is then tried and found guilty of manslaughter probably getting a sentence of 2-4 years, tried by an all Indian jury. How would white people up here react?
I honestly don’t know? I doubt we would be happy about the verdict would we riot though? When you live in these communities that are like inner city Oakland your view is skewed of our justice system no doubt about it.
The Oakland riots I don’t think was about left wing politics, I think the left wing reaction to them however was predictable.
“We” would do nothing. There’s no central core issue to move from. We don’t have the slavery issue like the blacks, the “Bloody Sunday” issue like the Irish, the widespread poverty and corruption like many African countries. There’s no Race Inc or Catholic/Protestant church divide to fuel things. Plus, the white population has been trained since youth to feel guilty for pretty much anything bad that ever happened, be it the indians, slavery, Kent State, assassinations of civil rights leaders, the subprime issue or the oil well- all undoubtedly the fault of white males. We’re supposed to roll over an offer our throats. That’s why divisive events like Black History Month and Black/Hispanic/Gay Pride Parades are okay, supported in fact. But speak of White History Month or having a White/Straight Pride Parade……….you racist homophobe hatemonger you!
So we would do nothing. Those that try to boost pride in American values, not black or white just American, are branded hatemongering racist revolutionaries. Attempts are made to stifle their liberties and to sabotage their events. Just look at Glenn Becks 8/28 rally for proof of that.
The answer to the original question, after all this, is:
The kind of mob violence you can expect when a white cop kills a black man by shooting him in the back when he’s face down on the concrete, and is subsequently not convicted of murder.
Been more than a few cases like this, and more than a few reactions like this, over the last century. Not really that complicated or nuanced. And not really “political” at all, in a two-party sense.