Violence should NEVER be the answer to any problem. Unless you need to self-defend yourself from any threat that can put you in serious risks of danger. It's a must if you need to personally stand up and be against those who will be violent to you and they hurt you first.

That's a more moral question.

I'll Quote Sergeant Alvin York, recipient of the Metal of Honor and was drafted as a conscientious objector back in WW1.

"I'm a believin' that this here life we're living is something the Lord done give us, and we got to be a-living it as best we can — and I'm figuring that killing other folks is no part of what he was intending us to be a-doing here."

The man single handedly captured 132 men and attacked 3 different machine gun emplacement.

"I figured them guns was killin' hundreds, maybe thousands, and there weren't nothin' anybody could do, but to stop them guns. And that's what I done."

Quite a contradictory statement. But the point is he was motivated to kill to save more lives than end.

Not really corrupt police.  Without that video a different story would have been spun by the
cops giving them justification for what happened.  Generally speaking, our cops are given
great latitude for performing violence, but have little accountability.  Corrupt indicates that
the actions were outside acceptable behavior.... these cops believed what they did was completely
within their purview. 

There is a legacy of lies promoted by the media and educational institutions which effectively blame white people for all the problems of non-white people. Because people believe these lies, they irrationally project mental drama. For example, there is a belief that white people have unearned success and imaginary privilege while non-white people have no opportunity or privilege. Another example, that black people in prison are innocent because most the people in law are white people.

So it's more a war on truth.

The only people who truly believe that all cops are bad are anarchists seeking total freedom, and the very kind of vile people that police forces were formed to deal with

To answer your questions (which I presume covers more than our many, many guns):

1) nope, engaging in violence outside of personal defense (or the defense of another) is a choice strictly for the lowly intelligent

2) cities being destroyed is terrorism (or in this case, anarchy) being realized, so yes

3) in my opinion, violence is only justifiable while hunting and in defense purposes - and IF no other option is available

4) no. There's a huge difference between justice and arrogance. See previous three responses

- There may be some instances where non-self-defense is justifiable. Also depends whether you want to use a single or multi point view. This one isn't.
- Yes, cities don't just appear. Also see side note
- <reference>If you kill 1 million people to save 10 million people</reference>
- Generally no

Side note, there's talk of protesters attacking private properties. Large companies sure, orange ape will definitely notice when his elite clique is in trouble. People's livelihoods don't directly get threatened. Properties owned by normal civilians are a no-no.
If you are a protester, attacking your fellow normal people is:
- Not justifiable in any way
- Comparable to terrorism in a way (attacking civilian easy targets)
- Friendly fire (there are people working for the same goal as you, you don't want them to turn, do you?)
- Useless (duck won't do anything because it's not an issue to him)

tl;dr don't loot small bois, only big bois

I'm totally in agreement with you, Evilnerd-san. I don't know any justifiable reason for violence (real violence of course, not something like judo or boxing, which is theoretically violence too, but "distilled" into a pure thing).

The disgusting murder of poor mr Floyd was revolting, cowardish violence. Totally unjustifiable. The people who are outraged about it and demonstrate, at least most of them, are peaceful. The violence against them is also completely unjustifiable.
The destroying of property isn't justifiable either. I don't really understand why the Americans do that; the looting I can understand a bit, because of the extreme poverty of such a large part of the population, especially the black part, who are economically and educationally discriminated against. But understanding doesn't mean approving.

In Hong Kong, the people are very angry as well, but they don't loot. In France, the revolt of the Gilets Jaunes was very fierce also, and there was destruction by an anarchistic movement that took advantage of the revolt; but there was not looting. The explanation for this is that in France, nor in Hong Kong, there is no half of the population that is like a hundred times more miserable than the other half, solely because of the color of their skin.

 is an act of violence ever justifiable , if it is not in self defense ?  
Don't get stuck on the self defense thing. Violence either *can* or *can not* have a positive outcome.

 will destroying cities cause more harm than good ?
Does property damage outweigh life ? Do the protests even *destroy* cities ? Can a protest even *destroy* a city ?

 in your opinion , when is violence fully justifiable ? 
When the result of the violence is more positive then not doing the violence.

 do you believe that two wrongs make a right ? 
No. Do you believe that inaction is a action ?

If the protests succeed at pushing the government to reforming the police into an institution that doesn't kill and harm innocent people. And the amount of lifes saved outnumbers the amount of lifes lost. The violence of the protests (if any caused by the protesters) will be justified.

This rioting is an act of self-defence.

Can't say I agree or will encourage violence but I don't believe slavery would have ended without the civil war either.. neither am I too sure all this police brutality will end with peaceful protests. VERY sadly.

Wrestling, Boxing, MMA, Muay Thai, BJJ...

The competitions are violent and not in self-defense, but it's consensual violence. I would argue that they're totally fine.

But to _actually_ answer your questions:

- Depends on what you mean by self-defense. If it's only direct harm against you physically, I would say that's not the only justifiable option. I would argue that slavery was not something that could have been ended without conflict. If you've tried diplomacy and failed, violence is sometimes the only language that people will listen to.

- Yes, it does more harm than good to destroy a city. While I think violence can be an answer, even if it's one of the last answers to pick, it has to be organized violence specifically targeting the actual root of the problem. Burning random shops is not going to make the police behave themselves, and most of the looters do not actually care about the protest - they're just using it as a distraction.

- Violence is justifiable when diplomacy fails repeatedly and the offender's offences caused a significant amount of damage to the lives of others.

- That's a very simplistic way to view it. If committing a "wrong" prevents someone from committing even more wrongs in the future, then from a broader point of view your "wrong" was the right thing to do.


All of that said, I share the fairly common opinion that the protests are fine and the looting is not.

Peaceful communication is only ever viable and functional when the opposite party is also willing to partake in peaceful communication while being on neutral, equal ground. As soon as this ceases, one side will force the other to make use of violence. Winners write the history books. Winners write the rules. And power attracts the corruptible.