Great politicians answer. You either support their actions or you don't, if you do, then you consider any negative consequences, including injury or loss of life as an acceptable price worth paying.
Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk
I think I have made it pretty clear that I support the direct action that is presently being taken.It would appear you are trying to conflate the issue of actions that lead to indirectly and directly to death, and that is also a politicians technique, which you've deployed a number of times on other threads.
Do I support action that may indirectly result in death? Yes. Any action or set of protests that causes disruption may result indirectly in death or injury, no matter how large or small it is.
Do I support action designed to directly result in death? No.
But let's be clear, these protests are not designed to result in death. They are designed to prevent deaths in the long term.