People had died only for violence.
I think it depends on how you are using violence for good or for bad.
Good violence is protecting you.
Bad violence is hurting someone for no reason.
It just depends on how you look at it.
A violent protest is not good. It makes both sides dig in harder. In non-democratic jurisdictions, the ramifications can be horrific.
Some protestors feel that it will bring sympathy and wider attention to the issue. It might bring wider attention, but not the sympathy hoped for.
people will be violent with you ... which means you'll get beat up as well basically ... and besides ... violence sucks majorly ;)
It can't be good. Violence doesn't solve problems, but makes problems worse. MLK and Gandhi knew that and taught to return hate with hate solves nothing.
because they are violent.
violent protest are protest which were very violent
Violent behavior is never the answer, as it only leads to harm and destruction.
Yes it is. It means people can make their point and do it in a responsible and safe manner. People will get more respect is they peacefully protest and that can help their cause, as it is much easier to criticise a violent protest by those who don't support the issue that is being protested about.
Yes, but there is a proviso - for this to work there MUST be a free press to report the protest. If there is no free press then the protest is not know to the people and is irrelevant.
ghandi used a method known as non violent protest. He had people protest without lifting an arm in defense.
It is a protest which does not employ violence as a way of getting the message across. Some means of achieving this could be petitions, lobbying through email, letters or media outlets, or boycotting. Demonstrations, marches and similar can also be a form of non-violent protest, but often become violent as they progress. One example of an effective non-violent protest was the Montgomery Bus Boycott, where coloured people refused to use the buses in Montgmoery, Alabama to protest about segregation on the service. After almost a year, loss of revenue forced the company to desegregate the buses and allow coloured people to sit at the front.
It is a protest which does not employ violence as a way of getting the message across. Some means of achieving this could be petitions, lobbying through email, letters or media outlets, or boycotting. Demonstrations, marches and similar can also be a form of non-violent protest, but often become violent as they progress. One example of an effective non-violent protest was the Montgomery Bus Boycott, where coloured people refused to use the buses in Montgmoery, Alabama to protest about segregation on the service. After almost a year, loss of revenue forced the company to desegregate the buses and allow coloured people to sit at the front.
The disadvantages of a non-violent protest consists of verbal abuse used more commonly as physical violence is not tolerated in non-violent protests.
Peaceful protest
Malcolm X use NON - Violent! But some of his supporters did get violent.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi advocated non-violent protest.
Mahatma Gandhi was know for preaching non violent protest.