I don't see it that way - and I speak from our family experience. My cousin's husband was one of the leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising; my wife's ancestors were enslaved in this country; her uncle was one of the Black soldiers who liberated the Death Camps in WWII.

The difference is not in the race of the rebels, but the situation. By the time of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, there was hardly anyone left. Those who rose up had nothing to lose - they would probably be killed no matter what they did, so they decided to die fighting. In the armed Black rebellions, in contrast, both liberation and life were real possibilities, so the decision of what violence to use made a strategic difference in whether those goals would be achieved.

The two scenarios you pose are entirely different from both the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Black rebellions against slavery. In your hypotheticals, the goal is to escape, not to rebel or to liberate anyone but themselves. As I was reading them, all I could think of was that the killing spree you posited would be a stupid idea from a strategic point of view. All the violence you posit would be not only unnecessary, but counter to the goal of escape. So all of your proposed violence would be immoral.

For a more considered examination of these questions, I recommend reading Who Abolished Slavery? Slave Revolts and Abolitionism: A debate with Joao Pedro Marquez, edited by Seymour Drescher (another cousin of mine) and Pieter C. Emmer (Berghan Books 2010). For the real life story of our family in these real life scenarios, see:

https://medium.com/an-injustice/part-two-the-road-to-the-promised-land-39f20224759d