There’s a book on the subject written by Srdja Popovic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_for_Revolution

Summary: protests that start (and try to remain) non-violent have a greater chance to succeed, because they can attract more people to their cause.

Critique: with some regimes, it’s not possible to non-violently protest. For non-violent protest to work, the environment must respect a minimum amount of human rights.

Case samples:

• US during the civil rights movement era: yes
• USSR under Gorbachev: yes
• Serbia under Milosevic: yes, with difficulty on every step (Popovic was there doing it)
• Israel under Netanyahu: probably yes
• China under Xi: practically no (not for long)
• USSR under Kruschev/Brezhnev/Andropov/Chernenko: not really
• Russia under Putin: no, don’t even hold a blank sheet of paper
• Iran under Khamenei: only if you’re doing a bread riot
• Saudi Arabia, USSR under Stalin, NK under the Kim dynasty: no, and execution would be a possible outcome

…etc. In some places, you can’t organize. Then your only option is to fight. As long as you can publicly organize, definitely do so - it’s vastly preferable. :)

US during the civil rights movement era: yes

I gotta ask, how the hell was the US in the 1960s a safe place to nonviolently protest? Police violence aimed at colored protesters during that era was notorious. Plus the church bombings, the lynchings, the assassinations…