Imagine you’re a politician, and there is some sort of controversy causing people to protest.

As you look out your office window you see people blocking traffic and holding up signs.

Now imagine that you are looking out the window and you see people lighting trash cans on fire, fighting, rioting police officers and looting stores. Now ask yourself,which is more impactful?

Which of these two stances would actually get you to try and make peace or negotiate with the protesters?

That’s right, violent protesting has much more of an impact on someone other than nonviolent protesting.  Violent protests operate under the assumption that one should claim an eye for an eye, like it says in the bible. This is the strongest and clearest form of justice.

It makes a point. It gets the point across much faster than just sitting around with signs, and banners. It forces the opponent to become aware. It cannot be overlooked or terminated.

A recent example of an effective violent protest is the Michael Brown case that took place in Ferguson, MO. Brown, 18-years-old and unarmed, was shot and killed by a police officer.

After the shooting, groups like the “New Black Panthers” have vowed retaliation against the officer who shot Brown, claiming that he was murdered.

For days the Ferguson people Chief Thomas Jackson was not going to release the name of the officer that shot Brown, due to the fear of his safety.

After a series of violent protests, Jackson came forward with the officer’s name,Darren Wilson.

Violent protest is much more effective and will get your voice heard so much faster and louder than non violent protest.