Perhaps I focused too much on one type of civil disobedience. The examples you cite are useful in illustrating that the disobedience has to be peaceful. Or perhaps it might be better to say that the moral authority or message of the protest is vastly strengthened by peaceful disobedience. The willingness to be arrested without resisting is also an important component as it communicates a concurrent belief in the rule of law while still protesting.
When the disobedience includes assault, vandalism, arson, looting, and so on, it is no longer a protest, it is a riot and it looses all its moral legitimacy as a protest in my mind.
It is an interesting question. My first thought is that a core element of the Boston Tea Party was that the colonist had no representation, there was no legitimate way for them to participate in their governance and they were protesting specific laws/taxes that were being imposed without their consent.
I don't think that the current situation in the US is analogous. There are lots of ways to affect change without resorting to violence: peaceful protest, drafting new laws, voting for more police funding, voting for different representatives, voting for different executives.
The idea that all those options have been exhausted and the only solution is to physically and economically destroy communities in order to draw attention to the problem is illogical and self-defeating. In an even more bizarre twist, the story that seems to be emerging is that the rioter's demands are to make changes that aren't wanted by the people in the communities that the rioters purport to represent (see recent polls that minority communities want more police, not less).
When the disobedience includes assault, vandalism, arson, looting, and so on, it is no longer a protest, it is a riot and it looses all its moral legitimacy as a protest in my mind.