the_dunk_tank

How is an unarmed person violence?

Because that person is a cop or military member ordered there by the state specifically to oppose a protest.

Genuinely, what violence were they engaging in if a bunch of liberal students burned them alive without dying?

I don't know what you think happened June 3rd and 4th 1989 in Beijing, but I'm lead to believe that plenty of civilians died.

Look up the pictures, watch the videos, Chinese police are very different than the ones we are used to. Think the old times type of dude with bright sticks directing traffic.

BEIJING, CHINA - 1989/06/01: Pro-democracy demonstrators sit in front of soldiers who are lined up, standing guard outside the Chinese Communist Party's headquarters on Chiangan Avenue just days before the bloody crackdown on students and protestors in and around Tiananmen Square.. (Photo by Peter Charlesworth/LightRocket via Getty Images)

People Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers leap over a barrier on Tiananmen Square in central Beijing 04 June 1989 during heavy clashes with people and dissident students. On the night of 03 and 04 June 1989, Tiananmen Square sheltered the last pro-democracy supporters. In a show of force, China leaders vented their fury and frustration on student dissidents and their pro-democracy supporters. Several hundred people have been killed and thousands wounded when soldiers moved on Tiananmen Square during a violent military crackdown ending six weeks of student demonstrations, known as the Beijing Spring movement. According to Amnesty International, five years after the crushing of the Chinese pro-democracy movement, "thousands" of prisoners remained in jail. (Photo by CATHERINE HENRIETTE / AFP) (Photo by CATHERINE HENRIETTE/AFP via Getty Images)

Honestly, that's not the vibe I'm getting.

Cops under capital =/= peace officers under socialism. [...] while also recognizing that that isn’t the same thing as a cop protecting the revolution.

I'm actually not well versed on the topic as I'm sure you can tell, but are the people living under the revolution supposed to be able to have their complaints and desires heard? If not, who decides what the revolution's goals and priorities are, and how different is it really from the life I know in the US?

So if we can agree that the secondary aggressor has lesser culpability then even then the “violence” of trying to keep the peace was self defense.

I've always been of the opinion that those with more power and resources should bear more of the responsibility in a conflict, but maybe that's a naive way of looking at things.