Even accepting this dichotomy at face value, rephrasing this a bit you could say it's a choice between bodily injury (to the protestors) or property damage. It's telling that in the US property "wins".
The property vs. body isn't about valuing "things" more than people. It's about recognizing that the decision to destroy someone else's property is illegal, and that activity should be interrupted by the government. It is one of the few responsibilities a government should have. Underlying the property, real damage is being done to real humans by destroying their past and future bodies through the proxy of property and the tradeoff they would need to make to reacquire it.
Obviously they're still alive so can spend time acquiring more, but let's not pretend property crime is priceless. That said, I don't advocate for violence and would prefer to see the legal system work the issues through.