This Ukraine thread 
Kremlin can cut down on their propaganda budget given how many people there are promoting Russia's god-given right to arbitrarily invade and annex neighbouring states. I imagine Putin probably spends most of his days now looking at a map of Eurasia, trying to decide which country to take next.
I have no reason to accept any of these allegations at face value (your descriptions do not accord with what I have read) or that the government is responsible for them. For example, Mikhail Zhiznevsky died during confrontations with police initiated by the opposition--that puts the blame on the opposition. That said, I have little doubt that the elected government used repression. All governments (even democratic ones) do. I do not have to defend the government's use (or abuse) of force in all of its particulars to believe that its overthrow by force has not been sufficiently justified. I could certainly tell you some horrible things that other governments have done to demonstrate the inconsistent application of the principle you're purporting to rely on, but I won't waste my time. Ultimately, again, the best evidence that a democratic government has crossed a line (justifying overthrow) is popular consensus. That doesn't exist here.
The problem is that you are not relying on facts. First, you disregard entirely deaths that were provoked by violence of the opposition, choosing to lay them at the feet of the Yanukovych government. Do you think Yanukovych was among the "radical street fighters [who] attacked and broke through the police lines established on Independence Square," initiating the violence of February 20? By my calculus, that makes the opposition responsible for all the deaths that day. You think incorporating the people killed by sniper fire on February 20 is very wise given the lack of any reliable information about it? Because, if so, you may have to call for the overthrow of the new government, given that there is evidence the opposition was responsible for that. Although perhaps the standard for overthrowing governments will have changed by then.
Regardless, you are predisposed to find facts against the elected Ukrainian government, even if you can't prove them. And if you think the English language press is going to publish stories about the transgressions of its political allies in the new Ukrainian government in the same way that it covered the elected government, I've got a bridge to sell you. (Note that the story on German public television covering evidence that snipers were from the opposition has not yet made it to any English language press. I wouldn't hold your breath for it.) The bottom line is that I don't pretend to know that for which reliable information clearly is not available. I don't rest my judgments on political spin and elite narratives, either. And, the good thing is, since I am not the one defending the overthrow of a democratic government (or my government's participation in such), the burden isn't on me to prove anything.
It’s worth pointing out that the International Republican Institute is a US-based NGO funded by the US government (including the same entities that have been active in Ukraine movement building) and aligned with the Republican party (itself an extremist organization, in my opinion). You can read about the IRI here or here. Given its pedigree, I would have a hard time accepting this poll absent independent scrutiny. That said, there is nothing in the poll that supports your assertion that a majority of Ukrainians agreed with the EuroMaidan’s demand that Yanukovych resign. What I see when I read that poll is a divided country, exactly the kind whose democratic government one ought not depose through force. And do note that it reflects support for EuroMaidan demands at 45% in February, when the actual coup happened. (And remember that a demand that Yanukovych resign is not the equivalent of support for overthrowing the government.)
It should be noted that the investigation of the shootings should not be complicated from a forensic perspective. My position is that I will not jump to the conclusions that elite narratives are trying to sell me. I rely as best as possible on reliable facts, to the extent they can be discerned. And there currently aren't many of those. I can rely on Western sources as support for my position in a thread like this precisely because I do not trust them and you do. In law, statements against interest are generally considered more likely to be credible than self-serving statements. I apply that to the media I read (and not just to Western press but to all press). Statements that are contrary to the interests represented by the particular media I am reading I tend to put more stock in; statements that support those interests I apply more skepticism towards. I look for overlap in reporting between competing interests (which will tend to reflect facts so well-established as to be undeniable even by those who would prefer to do so). I reject adjectives and labels in reporting that inject opinion into it. I ignore all quotes by government officials as to their substance. I don't assume quotes from random people on the street represent anybody besides the one person speaking. And I take note of why the particular media in question has chosen to cover the particular story and factor that into my assessment of the facts presented. This is how everybody should read media. Unfortunately, a new "news" thread (in the most Orwellian sense possible, of course) had to be created for those for whom the exposure to some scrutiny was too much to bear.
To be clear, you’re saying that if a single person who is not an “armed operative” is killed, you will be calling for the overthrow of the interim Ukraine government? I will make clear that I don’t think the new government has any authority to use force against anybody, armed or not, because it’s not an elected government. I don’t begrudge anybody picking up arms against an unelected government, and especially not an unelected government containing fascists.
