I agree with this 100%. but you are defeating a straw man argument that nobody is making.

I would agree with this interpretation and stand by it.

Does any dead shell of a human deserve a grave? When resources become more scarce this will be an interesting question.

if you are attacked then defend yourself.

I mean, yes. But also: If your spouse is beating you, then starting fistfights with them to "defend yourself" is not the answer.

The issue with using violence against a violence-using government isn't that it's "wrong" to defend yourself. It is not. The issue with using violence against a violence-using government is that in most cases (certainly in this one) they can play that game better.

As soon as it is street battles between ICE and the protestors, it starts to fit a template that they understand how to rock with. That is why they are constantly trying to instigate violent confrontations. It's why cops plant agitators in protests. The central thing that props up a tyranny is cooperation from everyone else, and having a mob attack a set of uniformed representatives of the government looks wild and dangerous. It won't hurt the thugs all that much in the long run, it won't build any support from the supporters, it will galvanize people against the resistance. Having the narrative set in the exact opposite direction -- a set of lawless thugs roaming the streets attacking defenseless people -- helps build resistance. It helps people understand what the true nature is of what's happening.

It's just a question of what is going to work to resist them. Certainly just hanging around letting yourself get beat up by the abusive spouse is not the answer. But also, starting to punch back and instigate confrontations in a circumstance and environment where they can definitely win the ensuing fistfight (and then show their own injuries to the cops so you're the one who gets arrested) is not the way either.

It is a question of tactics.