When a government deploys violence anyway people do have a right of self-defense. There's a broad spectrum of criminality from refusal to disperse following an order to do so, through interferences with public property like removal or deployment of barricades, through interference, confiscation or damage to vehicles, through direct physical confrontation which has its own escalatory tree.
Non-violence is a position but must have limits, otherwise you are demanding that people become punchbags of the state and preemptively invalidating all resistance against oppression, thereby amplifying the oppressor's narrative. A government in sufficient trouble will kill nonviolent people anyway and while it will lose moral legitimacy it is often willing to accept that as the price of strategic advantage, because the reality is that state actors can get away with killing people under many circumstances.
What we sometimes see (as here) is a triangle between government, capital, and people. Capital threatens to depart if government is overly aggressive and likes to pat itself on the back for its regulatory capability, but at the same time capital uses government to keep people subservient to those who control the wealth; one might say it's similar to fleecing sheep and aiming to slaughter as few and as humanely as possible. Large capital interests farm people within the legal and executive infrastructure of states for all practical purposes.