>

If this were the norm, every politician would be getting harassed nonstop to the point that only the absolute worst, most corrupt people would consider it viable to hold office.
Even if someone has a 90% approval rating. There are still thousands of people who don't like what they're doing in their district alone.
To /u/Dry-Ad-2732, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:

Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.

Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >

I agree with you in theory, but this is much harder to accomplish in practice.
When you take a large, angry, riled-up group of people and direct their anger not at a system or institution, but rather at an individual human (not to mention a human they are standing only a few feet from) it becomes much more difficult to keep things peaceful. 
You can't punch, stab, or shoot an idea like 'gerrymandering' or 'gender inequality,' but you can certainly punch, stab, or shoot a human being. As a result, I think there's a much higher risk of peaceful protests becoming violent mobs in these cases.
Again, I have nothing against the peaceful protests you mention; the only trick is consistently keeping them peaceful. >

If im being honest, average people face horrors because of corrupt people in power. I tend to have less sympathy for certain people in an instance of a violent protest. If they are willing to cause despair to the lives of many, well, it is what it is if some people go after them in the end..
But this is about peaceful ones specifically to respect the rules. >


If im being honest, average people face horrors because of corrupt people in power. I tend to have less sympathy for certain people in an instance of a violent protest. If they are willing to cause despair to the lives of many, well, it is what it is if some people go after them in the end..

Well, sure -- this is all well and good for the people in you power you disagree with. But if you're going to increase the risk of violent protest, you're going to increase it for everyone, not just your political adversaries. 
For example, let's say there's a Senator who helps pass a bill legalizing abortion, or expanding LGBT rights. Would you still shrug your shoulders and say "It is what it is" if they were violently targeted?
​

But this is about peaceful ones specifically to respect the rules.

Again, I agree with in theory. But it's a bit like saying, "Going 20 mph over the speed limit is good, as long as you don't cause any accidents." Similarly, this may be true in theory, but you'll have to grapple with the fact that speeding in and of itself increases the likelihood of accidents. >

OP, this is the real issue. You might be fine with the risks of violent protest against individuals who cause pain to certain groups, but we have to accept that there are many different groups all with different interpretations of what's "morally" wrong.
Most protests (unorganized ones at least), just need one spark before it turns violent. Humans are inherently fearful creatures where our flight/fight reflex kicks in very quickly. 
Let's take a home being protested. If people continuously encroach on a person's property, at what point do we call it too far? What happens if one person breaks down the door and enters? Would you assume the crowd wouldn't follow that person into the house?
In many cases, that spark is all it takes for a peaceful protest to turn violent. >

I think one major issue, is the intimidation factor. If a group of protestors is outside of a judges, or DA, or Politicans house, they may feel intimated to press charges or not, sign a bill or not, instead of making the right or lawful decision. What is peaceful means different things to different people.
The other issue I see is most people have neighbors, so even a peaceful protest can still be disruptive to people you aren't intending to disturb. Where as a town common, the state house, or court, generally aren't in neighborhoods.
Also public property is (in theory) our property, private property is not. >

100%. I live in Seattle and in 2020 protestors went to the home of the deputy mayor which is in the same area as my house. As the article mentions, there had been vandalism at the mayor's house on previous nights
People seem to think that everyone automatically understands the peaceful intention of a protest. If there are 100 people shouting outside my house at night and blocking cars, I don't necessarily have any reason to trust that the protest will be benign. They are creating a very precarious situation. I'm going to be much more on edge in my own house with my kids than in a public place. It's very easy for people on either side to feel threatened.