Violence causes suffering. That's the reality of the use of violence. I'm not flinching away from that. You're the one drawing arbitrary lines in the sand - targeting civilians is wrong, but taking actions that you know will cause civilian deaths as collateral is fine? How many German civilians died as a result of Allied military actions during WW2 - are we supposed to treat those deaths as so awful that the whole use of military force against the Nazis is despicable? A family losing a kid to a terrorist sniper is unacceptable no matter the circumstances or oppression; a family losing a kid to a drone missile, or a police officer using excess force, or a famine is just the normal course of things, totally unexceptional and ordinary.

I'm not justifying every use of violence no matter the reason. I think it had to be justified based on the circumstances and the context. But, yes, I do think there are some circumstances I can imagine where such use of force is justified. I'm not going to rule out the use of violence, even with all its terrible consequences, even if it may lead to civilian casualties. And I'm not going to draw up separate rules where violence magically becomes worse based on whether or not it's done in the name of the government. Is that a difficult and awful moral decision to have to make? Yes, absolutely, just as it is when the people making it have the law on their side. But it's our responsibility as mature human beings to face up to that judgment.