Cantwell doesn't mince words, but he got the concepts right: violence breeds violence, and we should have no pity for dead criminals on either side of a gang war — only for innocent victims like Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, James Whitehead, and countless murdered by the killer smurfs as well as by gangsters in different garb.
Does that mean "we" should actively go after the costumed villains? No. First, there is no "we" — everyone's case is his own, of which he is the sole ultimate judge. Second, it is generally unwise to fight people who possess superior force; maybe you care about a particular criminal being dead more than you care to live, but that's not the case for most people, and that's alright. Third, the process of violence itself is toxic, and it's unclear at best how you can fuel it without making things worse. Finally, get your personal priorities straight: is killing a criminal the greatest good you can do on earth? Especially since in the absence of mass resistance that would be the last useful thing you do?
Note that their conspiracy to cage and/or kill anyone who'd try to hold any one of them accountable for victimizing the public is of course is how the gangsters informally organized in this weakly-coordinated distributed gang known as the Establishment stay in power. That's also why not only is there no "we", there will be no organization of "I"'s either as long as they can efficiently spy on the public and control communications.
Now even assuming you decide that your time has come anyway and you might as well go berserk against the established criminals, the pseudo-random distribution with which you choose your target says a lot about your morality and wisdom, or lack thereof. If you pick unprovoked two random low-level enforcers in the street rather than go after one known for his zeal in evil, one known to have killed (of which there are only a few), or even against the direct managers of these enforcers, you are quite unwise in your moral priorities, which is another way of saying that you're evil yourself. The going after small criminals as such doesn't make you evil — what does make you evil is wasting your huge potential for good. Also, the preferring them as targets over bigger criminals, whether by conscious choice or by lack of thought, is quite evil for its adverse selection effect, barring other circumstances such as self-defence, or their being in the way of a bigger target.
Yet if after careful consideration you find that present use of desperate force against the Establishment truly is the best contribution you can make to all you hold dear, then my last advice to a man who finds he will fight a man-eating tiger with a knife is: don't try to clip its claws, much less to unroot its teeth — go for the jugular or carotid, the main blood vessels through which the blood flows to and from the head (that might be something between the treasury and the "intelligence" apparatus).
As for me, I have much better things to do than going after low-ranking thugs in this army of evil. It is a fact (therefore something neither happy nor unhappy) that, often, surrender is the best policy. And whereas its capability for violence is an essential asset for the state, that it monopolizes, and that progress in warfare technology seems to only reinforce, its asset both the most important these days and the most susceptible to be thrown off balance by technological progress is the willingness of its victims to identify with it. And so I believe that the best contribution I can make on the topic is in engineering better memetic resistance against mental parasites.