I don't think perfect non-violence is a reasonable expectation when the regime is arresting, bludgeoning, torturing, and otherwise raining down terror upon its citizens. People are going to be angry about all that - understandably so.
Ukrainian resistance to Russia isn't non-violent. Allied (and underground partisan) resistance to the Nazis wasn't non-violent. American colonial resistance to the British wasn't non-violent. Just a few examples.
But I'm not endorsing wholesale violence as an answer, either. Two wrongs don't make a right. Cycles of reprisal always unleash the potential for even worse abuses down the road. For instance, the Russian Civil War was terrifyingly bloody, and also didn't ultimately lead to freedom for Russia, either. The USSR likely turned out even worse than the Czar's rule, if it had been allowed to continue. The ISIS jihadists who fought (and failed) to topple the regime in Syria would have probably been worse than even the unimaginably brutal Assad dictatorship.
No easy answers today, I'm afraid.