It is still a peaceful protest, whether you like it or not, contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence.
You do not have to like the outcome of a protest, but if it is not a violent one, you are expected here to describe it in accurate language.
You are not doing that.
To illustrate my point: your logic dictates that not pulling over for an emergency vehicle is tantamount to assault. It is not, and should never be in any rational society. Agree? Disagree?
I was responding to your note that it is peaceful, not that is or is not a riot.
A gathering where someone dies because of the gathering it is no longer undisturbed by strife, turmoil, calm, and tranquil. It is no longer peaceful.
> ... contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence.
The breaking of peaceful to me is not absence of violence. It is no longer peaceful because force was used to stop the emergency vehicles. Force is one way to be no longer peaceful. In this context, when force is used it implies resistance from someone that was forced to do something they did not want to do (emergency vehicle did not want to stop). It is no longer peaceful; yet no direct "violence" was used.[1]
I can fathom where your response comes and grasp your interpretation, but I disagree.
It is still a peaceful protest, whether you like it or not, contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence.
You do not have to like the outcome of a protest, but if it is not a violent one, you are expected here to describe it in accurate language.
You are not doing that.
To illustrate my point: your logic dictates that not pulling over for an emergency vehicle is tantamount to assault. It is not, and should never be in any rational society. Agree? Disagree?