Xenophon wrote:
It's not civil disobedience if violence is involved, sir.
Civil Disobedience
1.
the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes.
Compare noncooperation (def 2), passive resistance.
2.
(initial capital letters, italics) an essay (1848) by Thoreau.
It isn't passive resistance if violence is involved, which
is typically what people support when they talk about civil disobedience.
Breaking the law as a matter of conscience (which is what these people believe they are doing, at least) could always be broadly called civil disobedience.
Even if you don't accept that definition, the larger question is about what preemptive steps should the state be taking to curtail free assembly out of the fear that some moderate violence may occur?
Should people who disagree not be allowed to congregate in the same areas? That doesn't seem right.
Should riot cops come bashing in anytime things get about as rough as your average mosh pit? Seems pointless and a waste of resources, and a potential disaster.