There seems to be a misunderstanding.

"So, the state who holds the guns and is in charge of LAW and ORDER, allows savages to pull down statues and assault individuals. But ARRESTS and CHARGES an individual for defending his own life."

The state that you see holding guns and in charge of law and order is -not- the State (fictional entity under law) representing and serving the civilized People of a geographically bounded area. The state you refer to is a legal fiction entity owned by a corporation and it -does- oppress civilized people because that is what it was created to do.

The State, (fictional entity under law) which represents and serves the civilized People of a geographically bounded area, and by extension is those People, did not arrest the man for defending himself. The corporation, through legal fiction entity (state) did arrest the man.

There are two opposing states existing in the same place and time.

The man was perfectly right to defend State property, which is the property of civilized people, and himself from the savage actions of another whose actions constitute assault under law.

So, the man who defended State property and himself is civilized. The savage who assaulted him is savage and savage lives do not matter if civilization is to survive.

Hope this helps.