You are being disingenuous, or are merely ignorant of the wider context (IMHO). You can't debate this subject honestly without seriously discussing the CIA and USA's role in attempting a violent overthrow of Chavez, early in his widely accepted as legitimate democratic leadership.
Actually, this comment makes you look like the disingenuous or uniformed one.
- No evidence or even convincing theories of USA involvement in the attempted overthrow of 2002 have ever been produced.
- While Chavez had been legitimately elected in 1999, by 2002 he had managed to piss off a large fraction of the population by constantly overreaching and refusing to discuss or negotiate anything at all. The attempted overthrow came when this fraction of people thought that the radical measures that Chavez was taking (unprecedented concentration of power on his person) were a huge threat to the stability and well-being of the country. Seeing how Venezuela has gone to shit 10 years later, it would seem they were right. TL,DR: there was legitimate internal discontent. (No need to sow discord from the outside.)
- The events of 2002 could be hardly described as violent. There were far more dead and wounded in the Chavez-led 1992 failed coup.
- As for the 2002 dead, the government accused some cops of their murder but never even bothered to provide any evidence at all. Years later, the judge in charge of the trial fled the country and publicly admitted that it had been a sham trial. Even as one such cop, Ivan Simonovis, is dying in prison from multiple diseases (he has gone whole months without daylight, which is considered torture in civilized countries) the government refuses to grant him even an humanitarian measure.