to be clear, i didn't write what you reponded to. Peter Marin did. As for this claim, from reading this book, I would never disagree about the Panthers. IIRC I was laughed on this list for quoting them a couple of times.
But as for what you say about context, that is also true for Weather -- at least that's the impression I get from reading this book. As for the Panthers, the book takes up that issue, criticizing the Weather for ignoring Hampton-- betraying him, actually. Apparently, they'd been mentored by Hampton. He had a deep respect for them and they held talks before DoR. They agreed to change their tactics; he agreed not to publicly criticize. Neither side held up the bargain.
According to Berger and Kopkind, the reason the Weather felt justified is that the Panthers weren't a monolithic group. NY Panthers supported their actions and, afterward, publicly praised them. (Berger notes Andrew Kopkinds book on that one).
I agree with Berger, though, that they needed to pay attention to Chicago's milieu at the time.
As for violence, in the end, I suspect my differences with others is in the fact that, in my own career as an activist, there was a point when, staring down the guns of state troopers, I knew I was capable of doing more than laying my body down in a blockade. It's not something I'd expect others to do, but I can viscerally understand where they were coming from in a way a lot of folks can't. They are either principled in their opposition to violence or willing to consider as an intellectual abstraction. Since that moment way back when, it's never been an intellectual abstraction for me. But I can see why, when it remains so, people recoil from the Weather's actions.
shag