That's the gist of it. Of course I left out a lot of things, and not all of them are in the protesters's favor. > early on the police were ordering people to d

That's the gist of it. Of course I left out a lot of things, and not all of them are in the protesters's favor. > early on the police were ordering people to disperse even though there was no violence at that time. But did the police use violence first? > late in July there were increasing attacks on protesters in which police stood by as people were attacked with poles. It seems that in this case, it was the police that were allowing violence and destruction, not the protesters. When you treat the police like your enemy, how do you expect them to rush to your help the moment you need it? And seeing that the protesters were more than capable of violence themselves, why would the police rush to help? > the first bullet even fired in this whole situation was a police officer shooting an 18 year old high school student. The officer was under attack and fired in self defense, you know that better than I do. > Peaceful protest is definitely better when possible, but in many cases throughout history it simply has not been feasible. In a place without law and order, it may not be feasible. In Hong Kong? It's definitely possible.