These are people who've decided to risk their freedom and even their lives, in some cases, to end specific instances of animal abuse.

There are people working on legislation, there are people working on public education, there are people holding protest signs, but those things alone will not achieve the end result of animal liberation. So people who are willing to break the law to stop animals being exploited are just one part of a liberation movement.

So yes, I think the threat of violence would save lives, innocent lives. I'm sorry to say its true.

Within the realm of some of these organizations, including the Animal Liberation Front, every effort is made not to harm a human being.

If that means going onto their farms, releasing their animals and burning the place to the ground, that's morally justifiable, in our opinion.

You would sort out people at higher risk and lower risk, and then maybe don't have to examine those at low risk as much. You will have a natural (method) of sorting out people for prevention, rather than for treatment.