Who throws a shoe?

I've been thinking about the current news story of the shoe thrower; particularly the allegations that he was beaten after he was detained.

Now, two options are possible, either he was beaten up after he was detained, or he wasn't.

If he wasn't, and the injuries are from while he was being detained then, then do I think he was justified in the event. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and call it a protest. Not really, no, I don't think it is valid to use physical violence to make a political statement; it happens a lot, but seeking to hurt others in order to further political aims has got to be a big bad, and the cries of 'he did it first and worse' might be valid, but the use of retaliatory action should always be condemned; after all, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. I think if the middle east in general could learn that lesson then things would be much better.
Now let's assume that he was beaten up after being detained. Words fail me trying to say how wrong this is if it were true, this is Guantanamo Bay level of wrong if it is true. Now this man's protest that I think is a bad thing has exposed a larger wrong. It's not quite the level of Jaywalking to bring the attention of Concentration camps to the public eye, but it is certainly I believe a lesser wrong to highlight a greater wrong.
You know I can't help thinking that did the shoe thrower himself put Bush at risk? Not really no, I'm fairly sure that a shoe even to the head isn't life threatening; whereas Bush ordered the bombing of this Journalist's city. Looking at the big picture Bush put this Journalist's life in much greater danger than the Journalist did Bush's.

Maybe it's me, I expect very high standards from law enforcement agencies, well I expect them to follow the law if you can call that a high standard.

So let's assume an almost worst case scenario that he was beaten after being detained and that this is exposed in light of investigations. Do I think the thrower did the right thing. Absolutely not, even if it did expose a greater wrong he didn't know that at the time. Fundamentally in the ideal case a society in all forms must be able to cope with unstable elements and survive without breaking its own principles; if you're going to break the principles at least admit that you are universally breaking this and state that you aim to break them before you break them - i.e. make it official public policy that terrorist suspects even in lack of any reliable evidence will be officially tortured for information on the country's home soil. If you see that any element of this is wrong and therefore want to not do that, then you have to give up on the whole thing.
Or at least that's how I believe things should work, as it stands it looks like I'll carry on being the good little automoton.