Moral prohibition on blood redemption

The truth is, I didn't know that there was blood redemption in cases other than accidental murder (now I see that it is already in the verses) and I intended to ask only about blood redemption in accidental murder. (And when I asked, I was bothered by the point that there would be a disagreement from end to end about the will of God, one saying it is obligatory and the other saying it is forbidden. But I will move away from that.)

I saw that the Gemara in Beatings cites a mishnah [and a baraita] that two scholars of Torah instruct him lest he be killed on the way and speak to him [things that are appropriate for him, telling him not to behave in the manner of bloodshed, for by mistake he has committed an act]. It is implied that it is indeed permissible to persuade the blood-saver, but it is forbidden to stop him with your hands. And apparently, if there is a moral prohibition for the blood-saver, then there is a moral obligation for strangers to assist the fugitive and to stop the blood-saver. It is true that killing the blood-saver is forbidden from a halakhic perspective (you shall not murder), but holding him or standing in his way is not really a halakhic prohibition. Bodyguards (unarmed) should be sent with him, and not just scholars of Torah. Does the halakhic permission for the blood-saver to kill include a halakhic prohibition on all others to interfere?

The very attempt to convince him means that killing is immoral. That's why they're trying to dissuade him.
Of course, the BID can also prevent it by force. In circumstances where it seems logical and moral to them, such as in our day when the right of the blood redeemer is not something socially acceptable, they are likely to do so. In any case, even if it is immoral, it is the right of the blood redeemer and therefore they may not resort to force but only to persuasion.

The idea is to pressure the accidental murderer, so that he will run to a city of refuge and not pose a danger to the public.