[a_m_kelly]

If you find yourself to be interested in this sort of thing more broadly, in the justification of violence or it's utility, I recommend William T. Vollmann's exhaustive, intricate attempt to establish a framework for understanding the motivations, morals, and ethics of violence in his work Rising Up and Rising Down: Some thoughts on Violence, Freedom & Urgent Means.

To give some idea of what the text is like, here's a little bit of it from a section called "Where Do My Rights End?":

   Justified Choices of the Self:
   1. Whether or not to violently defend itself against violence; 
   2. Whether or not to violently defend someone else from violence.
   3. Whether or not to destroy itself.
   4. Whether or not to help a weaker self destroy itself, to  save it from a worse fate.

   Conditions: 
   1. No attachment to nonviolent creeds. 
   2. No attachment to collectivity or authority which might prohibit the self from removing itself from "the line of fire"
   Caveat to (1) and (2): So-called involunrtary attachments are not binding..." (pg 81-82. Abbr. Edition)

   ...

The abridged edition from which I quote above is over 700 pages and includes case studies and narratives of people, nations or groups acting a certain way, which Vollmann slotting them into his "Moral Calculus," I haven't had a chance to finish it yet but I remain interested in the elaborate thought experiment that is the book and the vividness of the historical anecdotes it contains.

Vollmann would fully support responding to violence in kind, there's a long section on non-violent movements and their utter hopelessness in the face of regimes unwilling (like bullies) to tolerate any dissent.

[The classic example of this is perhaps Harry Turteldove's story "The Last Article," which proposes Ghandi campaigning in a Nazi occupied India and ends just as you would expect it to.]