I think what it comes down to is I have a fairly lenient view of people trying to intimidate others into doing what they think is the right thing when they've c

I think what it comes down to is I have a fairly lenient view of people trying to intimidate others into doing what they think is the right thing when they've caused harm. To a point. If I see someone take something of mine, and they refuse to give it back, I might feel okay in saying "if you don't return that, I'm going to have to call the police. Getting the police involved in this is definitely not going to go well for you. Is this thing you'e taken really worth that? Please just give it back and let's go our separate ways." Am I using intimidation to sway that person in this theoretical situation? Yes. Do I feel justified in using that intimidation? Yes. Really, what I think this comes down to is whether Audacity thinks they have been harmed and are in the right legally and/or morally in trying to get the other party to stop that harm. In that circumstance, I think telling someone what their actions might result in if you follow through with what you considered a perfectly acceptable and legal action (defending yourself) is not nearly the same as threatening some action that is purely for your personal gain even if the other party has done nothing wrong. Importantly, I also think that statement should be made based on what Audacity believes, not necessarily the specific law or outcome of a legal case were it to be brought. I think the above explains how the following situations are viewed differently by people, even if the statements are essentially the same (threatening some bad outcome for the other if you take some action so they capitulate in some way): "It's in your best interest to make sure that emergency exit is working for all our safety. If I have to report you, I doubt the fines and problems are worth not fixing it now. The only reason I haven't reported you is so you can handle it yourself and avoid that." Acceptable. The target is not following the rules and everyone else is taking some small harm (risk) from it. "You should really buy this 'insurance' I'm offering you. It would be a shame if you hadn't and someone does something bad to your business. I bet that might even happen within a week." Unacceptable. The target caused no harm, and needs to take some action to prevent harm having done nothing to cause the situation. > So I suppose none of us should worry about his feelings." afterwards, makes intimidation seem like the most likely hypothesis, IMO. I agree it's intimidation. The question is whether it's justified. It's hard to justify exposing someone to that amount of risk. It may be justifiable to threaten someone with that level of risk to try to get them to stop some harm them are doing to you, but it does seem a bit over the top to the point that it's very distasteful. There is the concept of a proportionate response, and I think this is probably disproportionate, which is what people are really upset about, and incorrectly attributing it to the intimidation in general. We wouldn't be talking about this is they simply said "stop or we'll bring legal action, with all the negatives that entails" but that's also intimidation, just proportionate and seen as normal and/or justified to most.