Fact check: We know that at the end of protests, there is often violence. It’s unfortunate, but it’s something we have to prepare for.

1. Summary of the results

The analyses present a mixed picture regarding the claim that protests often end in violence. Academic research provides some support for the statement, with one study finding that longer and smaller protests are more likely to radicalize ^[1]. Additionally, research indicates that violent escalations are more likely following recent repression and when protests are unorganized ^[2].

Recent news reports document specific instances of violence at protests, including incidents in Los Angeles where self-driving taxis were torched and police officers were attacked ^[3]. However, other sources emphasize proactive efforts by protest organizers to ensure peaceful demonstrations, with groups using deescalation tactics to prevent violence ^[4].

The evidence also shows that violence can stem from authorities rather than protesters themselves, as documented in Turkey where security forces used "unnecessary and indiscriminate force" against peaceful demonstrators ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement lacks several crucial perspectives:

• Organizational factors matter significantly - research shows that well-organized protests are less likely to turn violent compared to spontaneous or unorganized demonstrations ^[2]
• External agitation plays a role - some sources suggest that far-left groups have encouraged peaceful protests to turn violent ^[3], while others warn of potential impersonation tactics where opposing groups infiltrate protests to cause chaos ^[6]
• Protest duration and size are key predictors - academic analysis reveals that the likelihood of radicalization depends heavily on specific characteristics of the protest itself ^[1]
• Safety preparation exists for multiple reasons - sources indicate that protest safety measures are designed to protect against both potential violence and state repression, not just inevitable violence from protesters ^[7]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement contains several problematic elements:

• Overgeneralization - The phrase "often violence" suggests this is a common or typical outcome, but the evidence shows violence depends on multiple specific factors rather than being a general rule ^{[1] [2]}
• Fatalistic framing - By stating violence is "something we have to prepare for," the statement presents violence as inevitable rather than preventable through proper organization and deescalation techniques ^[4]
• Missing attribution of violence sources - The statement doesn't distinguish between violence initiated by protesters, counter-protesters, infiltrators, or authorities, which research shows are distinct phenomena with different causes ^{[5] [3] [6]}
• Lack of context about prevention - The statement ignores evidence that modern protest organizers actively work to prevent violence through training and deescalation strategies ^[4]

This framing could benefit those who wish to discourage protest participation or justify heavy-handed security responses by presenting violence as an expected outcome rather than a preventable risk.