I saw this movie in a film class many years ago; according to the instructor, Spike Lee said around the time of the film's release that there was a litmus test he used to gauge people's reactions:

Those who were upset over the death of the black man in the film-- which instigated the riot --and those who seemed to be more upset that Sal's restaurant was damaged (including the window getting smashed).

I thought it was an eye-opening distinction.

you can't be upset about both? it's just it's not worth stating the obvious, nobody would think killing him was the right thing. after all he was killed by policemen, not by Sal, so destroying his restaurant they were growing on was quite stupid

plus the radio guy was thug, he was trying to kill Sal (his defendants forget) and he and his friend caused all this trouble thinking they are entitled to go to private business and tell owner what he should hang on his wall and what music to play. if one of his sons would shot this thug while he was choking Sal it would make more sense, if they would destroy the restaurant, not sure why Lee went with police

Sal should not smash his radio and should call police immediately to get them removed from restaurant, but this was 80s so I guess police in new York had better things to do with rampant crime

his first mistake was let the kids go inside when they were closed, then not locking the door so those two thugs came inside, then it all went downhill quickly went he lost his patience thinking people will respect him inside his own business

and Mookie daring to come next day for money after all he caused with smashing the window was cherry on top, he should have paid for damages and be jailed by police, but Sal was too good still giving this prick money

PRETTY CLOSE TO MY THOUGHTS ON THIS FILM....

Welcome to the mindset of the eternally oppressed class in America who would rather complain and act out than actually improve themselves and their lot in life.