I believe I have overlooked something when evaluating violence disparity. When I look at Occupy Wall Street, Campus protests, Ferguson, Baltimore I see no hesitation in the use of violent suppression. Beyond what has been discussed another common thread is that those who met with mace, batons, gunfire, tanks, riot gear, threats, were mostly unarmed youth who, beyond not obeying orders, posed no real physical threat to them. Sure physical property was at risk in some instances, but I do not recall anyone blatantly stating as an official stance that they will meet police violence with violence in kind. Furthermore I do not recall Occupy Wall Street, Campus, City demonstrations where military grade or any ballistic weapons were on display by protesters. Fast forward to Oregon. Could this be as simple as a simple bullying dynamic?
Bullies tend to pick on those who are of little real threat to them. Bullies tend to abuse those who do not look like them. Bullies tend to beat up people who do not readily accept abuse and subservience, often as an example to others who are watching. But when a bully encounters an actual threat, especially from someone like themselves, I am a witness that bullies tend to fold like a cheap tent. When there is a real chance that they could get hurt and thereby embarrassed negotiations magically become an option. Perhaps what we have here is simply a bully system vs. bully system stand off.