Just some of my current thoughts...
I do not condone those who have damaged property in the name of justice. I do however understand the point that is often made that is used to justify the behaviour, whilst still disagreeing with it.
There is a social contract. People generally behave and treat each other well and abide by the law. If they don't and they break the contract then they are punished by the society around them through the judicial system. The contract stipulates that if you are in trouble or your safety is at risk, you contact the police who will enforce the law and maintain your safety/ seek justice if you are harmed.
From my reading of current events the reasoning for the destruction of property is thus. The social contract does not apply to POC. POC have been made to feel that the police is against them, treat them unfairly, and that the judicial system overly punishes people who look like them (I won't discuss the veracity of these claims but I hope this is a fair representation of the sentiment). The reasoning then goes something like...
"Why should I strive to adhere to a social contract that does not benefit me and actively works against me." This results in some taking the view that it's a 'free for all' and looting/ businesses are fair game. A sentiment I vehemently disagree with. I can also appreciate how these demonstrations can be used by those who are not engaged in the reason for the protest, but see this as an opportunity to profit materially.
I also think it's worth making a distinction between the Black Lives Matter political organisation and the sentiment that black lives matter (which I'll acronym BLM and blm2 (black lives matter too). BLM is a political organisation with explicit aims that are detailed on their website for all to view. I'm not convinced that everyone at these rallies affiliates with this group, the issue is that the slogan is a good shorthand for 'black lives matter too'. I think this distinction helps with some of the All Lives Matter/ Blue Lives Matter takes on this position...
It goes without saying that people's lives matter, but the idea of blm2 is that there is a portion of the population who have for some time felt that their lives were not as important as those of other people around them in the community, that they 'don't matter'. (Again the veracity of this can be debated, I'm sure some responses to this would include people considering themselves victims, and that they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get on with it. etc etc.) Therefore they protest against this injustice.
The looting and destruction of property can often become a distraction to the issue that is being protested, and that is a shame regardless of the cause being protested. It can equally be used to discredit the protests, somehow implying their invalid. Ultimately, damaging your community/ someone else's community results in a net loss (see: broken window fallacy).
I can't begin to imagine how a feeling of cultural second class citizenry would make me perceive the world and feel towards it. Perhaps I would be compelled to cause property destruction to express my frustration and to have my voice heard. Maybe I would perceive the world as offering nothing to me and that I must grab everything I can before it's taken away. I don't think I would but I cannot be certain.
Ultimately, I feel that the destruction of property and looting should be met with criminal prosecution of those responsible, regardless of which side of conversation you are on.
TLDR: Response to OP - No.