There's one absolutely huge difference here, and that is that the streets are designated for public access, while the seat of government and the offices of elected representatives are not.
Just because something is publicly owned does not make it legal to access, protest in, or damage. Consider some other publicly-owned properties: nuclear missile sites, courtrooms, the President's bedroom, police evidence rooms.
This is such an obvious distinction I am puzzled why it apparently needs pointing out.
I don't care if they're arrested right now (as the violence has ended), but I care greatly that they are eventually charged and that those facts are transparently shared with the public.
In interviews on C-SPAN last night, the DC Attorney General (an elected official by the city) made clear that many of yesterday's actions fall under his jurisdiction, but that (because DC is a federal district directly controlled by the executive branch) he is only able to operate under the guidance of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee named Michael Sherwin [0]
Just for clarity: People standing peacefully nearby whose worst law-break is a curfew violation? I don't think they should face any consequences, which I realize makes the curfew on its own fairly toothless, but that's already the case now. But when you pick up a rock or bottle and throw it at police, that's AB-DW on police in my book. (Same thing with criminal trespass and malicious destruction of property for the events yesterday.)
Basically, if you're acting like a lawless idiot, I don't care what your shirt says or what sign you're carrying while you do it.