I put up a link to the study
YOU CITED! I then gave examples from it as to why it's flawed and the findings YOU quoted are erroneous. Then you come back with some red herring argument coupled to an ad hominem and expect that to work? Get real. Your claims are bogus and your argument is vapid and baseless. I gave examples, links, and specific claims proving it so.
The larger the protest, the more likely it turned violent. That's consistent with the behavior of the radical Left. They aren't generally violent in small numbers. They get violent when they turn into a large mob. A dozen people holding a "protest" on a street corner for a couple of hours is not analogous or comparable to one where thousands of violent protesters take over a downtown, burn buildings, and loot. Even a mostly peaceful protest by thousands where some clash with police or those nearby that object to their views, isn't equal.
Large mobs also do other activities even when "peaceful." They spread trash and graffiti.
Cleaning that up takes time and money. It disrupts businesses and individuals. It creates an eyesore. Also, it isn't peaceful.
Society broke down in Seattle with the CHOP / CHAZ. It's done likewise at several copycat sites. Yes, the breakdown lasted days to weeks rather than permanently, but society collapsed within those areas during the time they existed.
Also, even if only a small portion of the protesters smash things, start fires, etc., they are using the rest as cover for their activities. Also, those other protesters do little or nothing to stop those who are being criminal, violent, etc., giving them their tact consent by doing so.