There seems to be a misunderstanding that non-violence is a paficism. It is not. When someone is going to rob or bash you, there is no point this. It is not part of a movement. To avoid fighting back is good, but even gandhi and King agreed that self-defense is necessary at times, but not in the context of direct action. It comes down to the first prinicple of non-violence. It is a way of life for courageous people, not cowards.
Nonviolence is not passive, but requires courage
Nonviolence doesn't require one to be a doormat, and it doesn't mean you just passively let people walk all over you. Nonviolence demands that you stand up for your rights and the rights of those who are being oppressed. It is not passive, but an active resistance to evil actions.
From this article:http://www.beyondintractability.org/...direct_action/
Pacifism is a philosophy which, in its absolutist form, proposes that "all forms of violence, war, and/or killing are unconditionally wrong. The proposed ideal is that social intercourse should be completely nonviolent and peaceful..." In conditional pacifism, nonviolence is still the ideal, but violence may be justified under certain, typically extreme, circumstances. Self-defense in the face of attack may be justified, but one should nonetheless do what one can to minimize the harm inflicted on the perpetrator.