It’s entirely possible that to actively resist this government's incursion we must overcome the natural urge to argue merits of the protesting. Any justification from either side can suggest that reasonable people may disagree about what is happening. Reasonable people cannot, acts against the law are wrong absolutely.
Of the two sides, one is government sponsored vigilante terrorism. It is an extrajudicial authority violating the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th, 10th, and 14th amendments of our Constitution, at a minimum. These violations are a feature to the advocate of the intervention, a belief that the fearsomeness of the protest justifies the violence, intimidation, and insurgency of the retaliation.
The other side is protected speech unless and until laws are breached. If protesters break the law, they are properly subject to arrest and prosecution. They must be identified individually, and with probable cause. They must be policed by proper authority and extended every legal requirement of arrest and custody. The attendant prosecution demands restraint of police to the letter of the law if it is to successfully guard public interest. The prospect of government having legitimate cause to intervene gives more reason to scrutinize the response, not less. A monumental value of our Constitution is the consistent intentional impediment to the government expropriating one's liberty.
The form that this type of chasm between right and left, us and them, (news and porn), seems to always follow is that we’re going to hear a lot of high tech speechifying intended to mitigate or justify a corrupt and lawless solution. Just as we always hear about the character or criminality of those murdered under color of authority, we’re going to hear about the moral relativity of gassing and beating and kidnapping...under these circumstances. My point is that resistance to this rationale is to agree, not with the grotesque rationalization, but with the absolutism. Let's arrest all who are breaking the law, starting with those intimidating with weapons of war, and protecting and serving those gathering with signs of peace.
Nothing about our laws makes you qualify for your rights. The first amendment does not innumerate certain protections, and go on to say unless you piss me off. I’ve read it carefully and that exception is just not included. The position more sensibly taken by those who find these protests reprehensible is to demand of the government unimpeachable discipline, or risk the punishment they relish dismissed over the misbehavior they encourage. Killers and robbers and rapers walk free over bad police work; advocates here should be careful what they wish for a mom wielding a deadly idea.