Civil unrest vs. domestic terrorism

Terrorists around the world make daily headlines by using violence against a system or belief with which they obviously disagree.

Now, granted, that's a simplistic distillation on the meaning of terrorism. The new world order that seems to be unfolding before our eyes brings so many forms of terrorism and by so many names that it's easy to get lost in this level of violence that has become almost commonplace.

Yet while the eyes of the world are focused on the Mideast and Africa, a form of domestic terrorism is growing within our own borders. And like the violence that erupts almost daily halfway across the world, our own brand of violence, too, is becoming commonplace.

Residents of Baltimore took to the streets to protest the death of Freddie Gray, who died in police custody.

But like so many earlier examples, the peaceful protest quickly turned violent in a form of domestic terrorism that we have unfortunately come to expect.

Looting and attacks on police turned the demonstration into a violent spectacle that is nothing short of domestic terrorism.

The mayor of Baltimore actually told police to give space "to those who wish to destroy," though her spokesman quickly tried to unwind the damage by saying the mayor's words were taken out of context.

The images of Ferguson are still fresh in our minds as we watch Baltimore follow suit.

Officials in Baltimore used the very same language as Ferguson officials did last year by saying those who sought to sow the seeds of violence were from outside the area.

But that deflection of blame falls far short of acceptable. Regardless of the geography of the thugs committing the violence, their criminal acts against authority still equate to domestic terrorism.

It's important to recognize the difference between civil unrest and domestic terrorism.

When violence is directed toward authority -- in most cases the police -- it breeds a brand of terrorism that clearly should not be accepted in a civilized society.

Law enforcement authorities are asked to straddle an impossible line of tolerance to the point of physical harm. Property damage is relegated to some sick acceptable level in an odd attempt to appease those who seek to demonstrate with violence.

Yet by "accepting" some level of violence and destruction, we send the wrong message that will only breed more of the same.

Though the outcome of the Michael Brown episode in Ferguson proved otherwise, there may well be some unspoken and unacceptable level of police tactics that are simply wrong.

But when those who seek to protest turn to violence and lawlessness, society will crumble unless those destructive forces are addressed.

The mayor of Baltimore may well have misspoken. But the underlying message that some level of violence and domestic terrorism is somehow acceptable is the formula for a long, hot summer.

Michael Jensen is the publisher of the Sikeston Standard Democrat.