"There is no place for political violence in our society."

Yet our society was founded on what might be fairly termed "political violence." I would argue that the use of force has to remain a last resort option in the face of totalitarianism. That there exist plausible, real-world scenarios in which violent opposition to tyranny constitutes less of a threat to the future of democratic rule in a society than does allowing a totalitarian regime to succeed (and not coincidentally constitutes the "path of least harm" that is so critical to the ethical calculus).

I'm not arguing that we have arrived at that state, and I thoroughly condemn these above-referenced acts. Professor Creel is correct in pointing out that it's an easy pathway to subverting the rule of law, rather than defending it. Any use of violence must be a genuine last resort in the face of oppression enforced by violence (or the credible threat thereof).

Moreover. individual acts of violence (personal-scale terrorism, basically) are unlikely to be in any meaningful way effective in defeating an attempt to impose totalitarianism. Effective resistance requires organization, even if it's on a guerilla/militia level (such as early in the American Revolution, to cite an obvious example). Assassinating even the most charismatic* figurehead seldom, if ever, results in success. You need tactical competence, logistical capacity, and strategic planning...because any potential tyrant worth resisting will have those things.

* In fact, targeting charismatic leaders is a great way to consolidate an opposition that might otherwise be at least somewhat divided.