This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.
The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we’re having this crisis now.
My thought: Point out to them that there is no “permanent winner” here in terms of ending violence unless they stop Trump.
The people believing in his agenda are often aimless, and very often extremely violent. See the January 6 rioters, who continued to be aggressive after being pardoned, as well as fringe groups going on the attack now that they think Trump will pardon them. Emboldening them any further may mean years and years of continuing to deal with such violent offenders, AND without the support of experienced FBI staff able to track threats on a national level.