What if they did expect a response, and then simply answered violence with violence?
Typically the person considered to be at fault is the initiator of violence.
Typically the person considered to be at fault is the initiator of violence.
That's fine if they want to attack anyone they perceive as being intruders. But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.
You're dodging the central issue: that it was the miners' act of trespass that, in itself, constituted the "initiation of violence" in this case.
But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well.
Sorry, but there's a very clear moral gradient at play here. It seems like you're trying to suggest there's at least some rough equivalence between the actions of the two parties. But if so, then I just don't buy that argument, at all.