Part 1 of my statement (mentioned solely because it is referenced in the warning and therefore may form a minor part). A dictionary definition of "safe" is free from harm, or unhurt. A substantial portion of these manhunts end with the death of the person being hunted either from police or self-inflicted when cornered. It doesn't seem particularly controversial to hope for that not to be the outcome.
Turning now to what would appear to be the more substantive part of the warning (bolding mine):
This would appear to be applying an incorrect version of the test in the malicious content policy. The policy is not written in a way that supports the above ruling, and I do not believe it could reasonably have been intended to be applied in this way. Wishing for an individual to receive a pardon in future certainly implies a degree of sympathy for their actions. However, this is not an offence under the rule in question, which specifically states 'glorifying' a violent action. People can legitimately have and express in acceptable terms different opinions on the bounds of ethical action than those held by the current law. As a matter of practical application there is a substantive conceptual difference between fervent celebration and active praise on one hand and on the other the calmly stated view that the action is morally excusable enough to merit a future pardon as opposed to the alternative where the individual dies in a firefight with armed police or spends a substantial amount of their life in jail.
