Yep. They are thugs, they are rioting – and they *need to be*. Let me explain some shit here for the people who keep condemning a justifiably angry social group; the short version is that you lack perspective, and those that don’t understand history are condemned to repeat it. Martin Luther King was successful because he represented a choice – negotiate with the polite and civil minister, or deal with Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and other armed and angry mobs. It took DECADES of angry mobs and police violence for King’s approach to be acknowledged as viable by both sides, and years more for MLK to be taken seriously by government and society. Ghandi represented the same choice for the British in India. In fact, most other peaceful revolutionaries throughout history were successful because they represented an alternative to an existing threat of violent uprising by a disorganized mob. In fact, the primary leverage King had at his disposal was that he would *leave the negotiating table*, and thereby leave the quest for social justice in the hands of a leaderless and angry mob. King never had to say it – his emergence on the civil rights crusade, and the change of tone and method he brought with him made it implicit in the dialog – a repeat of the decades of protests turned violent would be the only alternative to social change. Even well into the 1970s, when Boston enacted the desegregation of schools and the bussing program, violence erupted regularly on BOTH black and white sides of the process. So, until a leader who represents an alternative to civil unrest and violence emerges AND is acknowledged by the the power brokers as a leader in the social justice movement, this is not going to change; this will keep happening, and it will get worse and more violent before it gets better. Because until those in a position to actually effect change in policy are scared shitless that they will lose everything, those same power-holders won’t be willing to consider change.