I agree with the first part of statement: Violent rioters should not endanger the life of the President. Which is why, even if I don't like the current president or his methods (or anything, really), I understand the need to support security of white house.
But "Violent Rioters endangering president's life" should not be mixed up with "Capricious president endangers peaceful protesters' life". They are morally and tactically different scenarios.
By all accounts:
- Protesters were peaceful
- They were not approaching or endangering White House
- President decided to have an unannounced photo-op
- Without warning, trips used force to disperse crowds so the president can have his photo op
If you believe this is not a correct framework, I'd be curious to hear your perspective.
Cheers!