> They rioted and destroyed property. You're describing acts of violence. > No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there we

> They rioted and destroyed property. You're describing acts of violence. > No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. You're trying to play the humpty dumpty game of just making up meanings of words to fit your whim of the moment. Riots are acts of violence. Destroying entire car lots in rage is an act of violence. Destroying buildings in protest is violence. There is no way around it. Enough with the doublespeak. People got screwed out of their paycheck, they felt enraged, thus sparking a violent protested. Understandingly so. There's no need to pretend things were different.