JUSTIFYING ILLEGAL DIRECT ACTION:
- so when it's violent + protesters don't submit to punishment
- most agree that violence isn't justified if it harms innocent people, even in war soldiers usually don't target unarmed combatants
- others believe that it is justified if it attacks people who are associated with or contribute to the injustice e.g. attacking those who wear fur, or work in laboratories which test on animals
- hobbes + locke: violence is hard to justify because it threatens our security and one of the main reasons why the state was set up in the first place was to protect people -> so would seem like a contradiction to advocate violence
- HOWEVER, could argue that it's a matter of what the specific injustice is e.g. french citizens resisting nazi's in WWII most would agree is justified