Julius Caesar or Brutus and the Senate?

IMO Brutus/fellow Senators involved were just wrong in 'whacking' Caesar on the floor of the Roman Senate stabbing him a 'zillion times' in public/ in a lake of blood.

It was a bad idea for all involved because...

If Caesar was immoral it proved beyond doubt the Senate was even more immoral.

It alienated/ infuriated the Roman public who had liked Caesar.

It made the non involved Senators deadly enemies splitting the Senate.

Brutus and the others didn't even have anyone ready to put in Caesar's place because they had not thought that through!

Brutus and fellows put not just the last nail but more like the last 5 nails in the coffin of the Republic.

True, Caesar was a dictator and arrogant and full of himself, but if we killed every politician who was like that we'd have hardly any of them left...and he never killed any Senators or tried to disbanded the Senate/ or the republic/ he refused any kingship/ emperorship and was popular with the public and middle class + he wasn't aiming to start another civil war like Brutus did by killing him.

P.S. He was already 55 years old (up there for back then) wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, and his popularity would have faded with time.

Julius Caesar, the Roman dictator, was assassinated by a group of senators on the Ides of March (15 March) of 44 BC during a meeting of the Senate at the Theatre of Pompey in Rome. ... At least 60 senators were party to the conspiracy, led by Marcus Brutus, Gaius Cassius and Decimus Brutus.

There are plenty of plus and minuses. Tough to debate against the success of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Republic by that time was already messed up beyond repair. You'll have to do more than kill Caesar to repair the damage. Other power hungry people have been gaming the system for decades long before Caesar appeared on the political scene. 

iS KILLING TO GAIN POWER EVER JUSTIFIED?