My understanding is that the "traditional" notion of civil disobedience excludes acts of violence (the crimes that the parent was probably referring to) and for the participants to be willing to accept punishment for the law that they are breaking (i.e. you must be prepared to be arrested, fined, etc.).

The point is to show respect for the rule of law while at the same time calling attention to an injustice.

The notion that you can commit arson, theft, assault, vandalism, and so on with impunity as long as you self-proclaim you are doing it for a just cause is not what "civil disobedience" is about, IMHO.

Your reference to the founding of America only seems relevant if you think the current government is illegitimate and needs to be replaced forcefully and in its entirety (i.e. you are making a revolutionary argument). If someone wants to make that argument then I think they should be able to justify that drastic measure with a rationale that is a bit more coherent than protest slogans and be able to explain what they intend to put in place instead of the current government.

You are correct, that's why sit ins and say blocking a road work. Grabbing a rock and using it to destroy someone's storefront is a crime and those people need to go to jail. It just seems like a shame that some people don't seem to see the difference now and support the rioters and people destroying property as if they are noble souls or something rather than the criminals that they are.