There's a Wikipedia page on nonviolent revolutions, so is violence itself necessary or is the threat of violence sufficient? History may not actually be in complete agreement in favor of violent resistance.
"Nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time."
Nonviolent resistance movements are more likely to facilitate transitions from autocracy to democracy, improve democratic qualities like civil liberties, transform security forces and judicial systems in rights-respecting directions, and enhance well-being measures such as life expectancy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452292924000365
The commonly held belief that most revolutions that have happened in dictatorial regimes were bloody or violent uprisings is not borne out by historical analysis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution
Empirical evidence strongly favors strategic, organized nonviolent resistance as the most effective path to sustainable political change.
Political assassinations are a tool of desperation. They're effective at creating instability and further violence; counterproductive for achieving lasting political goals. They fail to eliminate the ideas, movements, and structures that person represented.