By their inaction, unwillingness to support the honest citizenry, and as such, tacit support for violent criminals, this is creating a very high risk for vigilantism.
***
Rioting invites invasion by China/Russia/et al.
It will end America, and we’ll be picked clean.
There are big differences between poor people rioting and what middle class people do. Those differences are as great as what the “Occupiers” did vs. what the Tea Party did.
And importantly, the “Occupiers” accomplished nothing but public distaste for their antics. The Tea Party elected a lot of congressmen and senators, and rattled the establishment.
Vigilantism as I’ve described it, is not rioting. It is a request, then a demand, that government do what it is supposed to do. And, in the vast majority of cases, government takes the hint, and reforms itself, or a new government is elected that will.
For any number of reasons, vigilantism is rare, because it only happens when the system of authority has broken down. It is a call for a restoration of order, not chaos. It seeks calmness and normality and public safety. If these exist, the vigilantism movement loses its purpose and dissolves.
The situation as it stands is that local government is in denial. When a group, troop or band of young men gather together with the idea of racially attacking a random citizen, while screaming hate speech, the government dies it was for racial reasons. The police are ordered to not arrest and charge this violent band with appropriate charges, but with lesser ones.
This tempts the formation of vigilantism to protest both the violence, and the unfairly generous treatment of the criminals. Yet a single individual with a gun could smite several such attackers, ala Bernhard Goetz.
And while the powers that be weep and wail and gnash their teeth, calling the shooter a “racist” who “profiled” those who were attacking him, the end result will still be several air conditioned attackers.