In this thread, a person did in fact make this statement:
Sorry but assault, vandalism, arson, destruction of public property, looting, etc are not Constitutionally protected activities no matter what the reason.
And whoever said that was completely correct. The Boston tea party was not constitutional either despite the constitution not even conceived at the time. But it was justified because it was a direct assault on tyranny and oppression in the defense of liberty.
No statement claiming that they are always Constitutionally protected activities was made to my knowledge. That they are never Constitutionally protected no matter what the reason was made. True, you could argue that it's not in the US Constitution, but there were state Constitutions cited that rejected the notion.
Neither state being the one the looting and burning of a CVS and senior center happened in- and that is even if you do stretch the wording to justify legal violence. Also, neither targeted centers had anything to do with the government. It's like shooting your neighbor because you want the mayor to resign.
It was the first-level reply, so perhaps you missed it, but that claim is why the discussion is not about whether or not any given incident is justified or unjustified, but whether any at all can be. There's no need to concern ourselves with proving the justification of every incident, that some incidents are not justified is recognized. The burden is on the assertion that no incidents are justified. If you can't follow that, then it seems to me you're the one who wants to ignore what's really the subject of discussion, and isn't bothering to pay attention to what has been said throughout the scope of it.
Again, what you quoted mentions constitutional protections- not justifications. Can violence be justified, sure it can. Does the US constitution or any other justify it? Not under the first amendment and as far as I can tell, only in the defense of the country or state against invasion. But more importantly, what happened in Baltimore is nothing comparable to the Boston Tea Party.
Again, whatever happened to that CVS, even if a totally unjustified tragedy, does not prove every other instance was not justified, and you seem to accept that others are justifiable.
I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. If you think past situations justify this situation, you would be wrong. That would be like you killing your neighbor in his back yard because someone shot an intruder in their house 5 years ago. They are different situations and while one is justified, it cannot be used to justify the other. If you think burning hundred of cars belonging to private citizens or drug stores or senior centers is justified because of the Boston tea party, you would be incorrect.
As far as I can tell, there is nobody arguing that absolutely no incidents are unjustified, but there is somebody who did argue that absolutely no incidents were justified. That there was no acceptable reason.
From what I can tell in this thread and by what you laid reference to already, the term is not justified but constitutional. They are not interchangeable and those who burned or looted were not within their constitutional rights.
Then they went around and said "Oh wait, here's a reason I do find acceptable." when the Boston Tea Party was mentioned which means they really ought to consider admitting they didn't hold their opinion for long.
Maybe you are confused. The Boston Tea Party was an attack on government not civilians or private corporations. The East India Tea company was not a private company either. It was being supported by the British government and had newly created privileges that locked all competition out along with a tax placed on the tea to specifically benefit them.
Again, where is the connection to government acts that justify these actions. If there is none, it surely is not comparable to the Boston Tea Party.