No it isn't. There are always going to be violent nutjobs that want to prove something by taking out the leader. Doesn't matter how "free" (whatever your definition of that is) the country is.
Who are tired of being expected to keep their heads down while the violent nutjobs at the top commit global mayhem on a much, much broader scale than a few rioters could ever hope to accomplish, you mean?
No, I don't support violence, or cheer on those who do. I've also been observing the European-style "antifa" crowd and their tactics long enough to just how ironic that label can be.
But I would pretend for a nanosecond that when it comes to "nutjob violence", this is anything like a one-sided contest.
And in this case, guess what? You take out Trump and you get President Mike Pence! He's mostly been off to the side so far, so I wonder if many outside of the US have heard his name much, but he's arguably worse than Trump. Definitely a lot more religious zeal.
Whatever the crimes those at the top have committed, if they lead a functioning democracy then violent action is about the least effective option you have at removing their policies. If some people are that pissed off then they should dedicate themselves to the cause, start or volunteer for political movements, even perhaps run for office themselves. Be a political force on whatever scale they can mange for years as opposed to a violent flash in the pan for a few minutes. Attempting assassination is just a last show of selfish, pathetic despair, and only makes things worse for the rest of us.
I get it, OK? As I think I've made it abundantly clear, I don't advocate (and and certainly not the least bit romantic about) the "revolutionary violence" route.
It's that this pigeonholing of street-level malefactors as "violent nutjobs", while pretending that those at the top (especially the likes of Erdogan and Putin) who stand patiently at the sidelines† while others enact "nutjob violence" on their behalf -- are to be considered as somehow in a different category than their street-level counterparts -- that I don't buy either.
† Quite literally, as we all saw in Erdogan's case a just a few weeks ago in the U.S. capitol.
Germany has massively risen in power, both political and economical. This is partially due to political mismanagement/corruption (esp. Eastern Europe), but a huge part of the growth of Germany results out of the loss that has been paid in poorer Europe.
And, surprise, both foreign countries and the German left do not like this.
That, and conflict in which aggressor aimed to physically destroy our population followed by half of century of being colony for USSR also had its part in our economies. When 90's finally came we had few people that remembered democracy and even less businesses that could kickstart our economies, only massive debts inherited from communist goverments.
I suspect that on a certain animalistic level, the "message" that the protestors want to get across (to Merkel and people at her level) is, basically: "Do what you have to do. But don't pretend to feel that there's anything dignified and civilized about it."
It's just that states only view their own use of violence as legitimate.
They're correct. That is the entire premise of the "monopoly on violence" which defines a state.
You can possibly argue that violence is effective, but by definition it's not legitimate, unless you choose to simply disregard the framework by which that legitimacy is conferred and substitute your own, in which case your criteria become relevant to no one but yourself.
However, it does not follow that the state is not using violence to enable speech.
State violence is still violence. The army of riot police descending on the city is there for a reason - to suppress the rights to freedom of speech and assembly for the many.
2. You make it sound like there wasn't overwhelming support for delegitimizing use of violence by any unsanctioned actor. That implicit agreement is what enables society in the first place.