Occupy Underground

who is committed to stepping outside of the legal boundaries has most likely considered that they would be liable for any or all consequences. Nobody should ever be coerced into anything (or similarly framed up by the state).

However the notion of righteousness is a complicated issue. For instance, is it righteous that a (hypothetical) First Nation band caused the death of a trucker on a blockaded roadway. Of course not. But is it righteous that that same band has had their land spoiled, and children poisoned to satisfy the needs of industry? Did the needs of that tribe outweigh the life of that individual trucker, similarly do the needs of industry outweigh the rights of that band?

Does the risk of injury, outweigh the risk of doing nothing at all? Does getting bad press harm a movement more than being ignored entirely?

I think its safe to assume that industry has considered all options for any sort of endeavor to guarantee its desired success, so therefore its only reasonable to leave all options on the table for resistance, (even if, it is only to keep them guessing).