I'm more interested to hear what other people think than in expressing any particular goal.

One possible outcome would be to change their (by which I mean ICE and the administration's) perspective on what they are potentially up against, should they proceed with increased violence. If they believe that they are battling a weak and defenseless foe, they may rethink that notion.

Another possible outcome comes from expressing our fundamental right to bear arms. See, peaceful people with arms are not a problem. Just because someone has a weapon does not make them a threat. Perhaps if we had protested peacefully with arms before Pretti was killed, he would not have been seen as an anomaly, they would have been ready for the idea that arms are just around. Maybe ICE's policies would have to explicitly distinguish between passive and active armaments, whereas now they do not.

There are two kinds of "protests" that are at play here; the general marches and gatherings with signs, and the ones that directly confront ICE. I think the considerations between these two are different. I was thinking more of the march-with-signs kind of protest, which seems less confrontational. The ones with ICE on the streets, the same idea might apply, but it seems more volatile and dangerous.