Much as the sympathizers would like to deflect that insurance is somehow going to cover all of this (it isn't), anyone who complains about “food deserts” but cheers on riots in the hood is part of the problem whether they admit it or not.
That is untrue. Well before the executions, arsons, and burglaries, there was essentially no ambiguity in the public perception of the case. Most people who watched the video believed they witnessed a murder, and that charge was already planned for Chauvin, well before the public was aware of riots.
And of course, even if it did work, it would still be wrong, and the people executing people and shooting senior citizens to death to steal televisions should be prosecuted.
Where do "facts" like this come from? I mean, a police station was burned. A bunch of windows have been broken in a bunch of places. But there's literally nothing to support anything like a statement like that.
Seriously: who told you "neighborhoods" had been "destroyed". Which neighborhoods? How many residents were displaced or whatever? Did you think to maybe question your sources when they arrived with no data at all? Didn't the fact that Fox (who normally are pretty good about journalistic micro-rigor, believe it or not) got caught faking image evidence about the unrest maybe cue you that you might be being misled?
But you're still going with that rhetoric? Why? Where are you getting your facts?
When you push out the police, it's no wonder that people who would like to get away with heinous crimes show up.