I believe most of what you're referring to are different situations such as people acting on impulses - either not considering the outcome or being resigned to it.
Another key difference is usually those take place between individuals with roughly the same amount of power (typical disputes, crimes of passion, etc.) and by individuals with more power towards those with less (bullying, abuse, etc.).
People actually taking systematic thought-out steps to infringe on the state's monopoly and doing it from a position of low amounts of power towards a position with high amounts of power are rare and get "charged"[1] with terrorism because that line of thinking is threatening the existing hierarchical power structures and they will absolutely protect themselves.
[1] The word meaning the state selects which parts of its rulebooks it will begin performing against an individual and announces it publicly in order to reinforce the legitimacy of its actions.
> most of what you're referring to are different situations such as people acting on impulses - either not considering the outcome or being resigned to it
Nah, those are hooligans. They're a nuisance, but they aren't dangerous. In my experience, when the police are distracted (e.g. by a large protest), the real damage comes from organised crime.
That's the second difference i mention. Organized crime is able to wield more violence than normal individuals so it has more power over them.
I perhaps mistakenly used the word "certain" to describe state violence. I tried to explain it in the parentheses but wasn't clear enough. Let me try to clear it up:
The state is (currently) unable to use the full extent of its violence against every person who breaks its rules. Hence why many people get away with large amounts of less visible crimes (even organized crime). It's only when the state targets you (such as when you perform one very visible / high-severity crime) that it's near impossible to escape it.
> In very localised conditions, largely due to the state's neglect.
I didn't mean just materialized physical violence against a person's body. It is still violence when it's implied/threatened, when it's targeted at belongings / relatives / reputation, when it's through a third party, etc. and often a combination of these. For example promising to call the cops on someone checks 2 boxes (3 if it's something they haven't done).
> This is the crux of power. Discretion.
Discretion is how you avoid power being used against you, it is not how you exert power. Though in a hierarchical society (pretty much all of them) where you're not at the top, you might need to use discretion to avoid a greater power while exerting your power on someone with even less power.
People are constantly challenging it. Pull back the threat of violence in most communities and you immediately get disaster.