re: this "dont sit down at a violent protest" thing.

Sure. I'm not the type of person to be at a protest that's turned violent. But just for my own edification, what's the play for the "we're going to have a brawl with the police" style of protest? Like how does that change policy. I'm not neurotypical and I can't really see it anything other than option 2 at the bottom, where the goal is, "yes, suffer a carnage so bad at the hands of the police that the public votes them out". How does winning battles against police, e.g. getting police /soldiers to retreat, actually result in policy changes? Dont they just come back with bigger guns next time and kill more?

1. "crap we (the government) better change our policies because we're simply unable to get our cops / military to win a battle against these brawling protestors"

2. "the citizens are so infuriated at how brutal the police were to those brawling protestors, where thousands were killed or imprisoned in horrible conditions, that they voted them all out"

3. "we were such badass brawlers that we marched right into DC and violently overthrew the government to create a utopian socialist democracy"