Dear Miss B, please allow me to 'extend, and revise' my remarks', and enter such in the record. Not that I did not mean what I tried to convey; and, I want to say that there is a place for what you describe as people wanting to fully understand how people feel, and act, and why.
What I wanted to say, to get across, is that no matter the reasoning behind illegal looting, fire bombing, causing chaos, riot and civil commotion, demonstrating without a legal permit, or bond, or renting port-a-johns and all the other typical arrangements a 'demonstration' requires (by the local rules, notice, closing streets, additional Police resources... sort of like a Church Carnival...), the enforcement of local laws and protection of private property, and municipal property, must be paramount, before, during and after such disturbances, to curb such illegal activity.
That said, there is plenty of room for individuals to attempt a grasp of the emotions and justifications the more civil and even less civil experience and employ, so as to understand how to defend against such actions and preclude such actions in some future timeframe.
Perception is reality, when one believes they are harmed, especially as a group; at least until trusted members of the group's "society" speak out, speak up, and calm those who feel such perception is real.
We have no shortage of agitators among us, of all stripes, some paid and some just do it for the fun and mischief of it, it seems. Is "military style" equipment, painted in some ominous or camo color, perceived as putting the heavy jack boot of authority on the neck of "the people"? How to ameliorate the perception, while at the same time having a law enforcement response that recognizes the capacity of "the people" for lawless potential, even if those who loot, burn and shoot at authority are a minor segment, intermixed and tolerate by the larger "the people" involved in a demonstration.
Do academics and politicians, and social science folks feel a need to study and express themselves, and offer solutions in general, especially on a internet discussion forum? Yes. Should they feel free to state their positions openly, without personal attack and ridicule? Yes. If my post, or position being strident caused offense, allow me to say that was not my original thought or intent, and I can recognize how it could be the case. My apologies to all, so far as that goes.
Study, understanding, planning, are different than "excuses" and "acceptance" of illegal behavior, especially destruction of property and rioting, looting, and harming others; and we certainly need all points of view as a part of formulating a workable solution.
Meanwhile the illegal activity must stop, whatever it takes. Want to make looting, fire bombing, shooting at random people by crowd members, riot and civil commotion, legal for a few days? Let the officials step forward and take that stand, and answer to the voters for their actions at the next election.
We are now in a post Constitutional period, with Government and media giving race and politics attribution to everything from pollution and carbon taxes, to foods consumed around us, to which stories lead the daily news of the day, and more rather than less honest dialog cannot do anything but help. The dialog must have room for dissent, include perceptions of common sense, and an understanding that not all of us will be satisfied with the resulting outcome(s).