I was talking about a possible scenario in the future, not trying to insult specifically your community. It is about all societies. You have to understand your power and consequences of its application fully. Providing to your members such specific immunity by default entails consequences. As you say:

ADSactly Society will always intervene on behalf of our members if they did no harm to anyone. .

Any member? Always? if they did no harm to anyone good clarification, but as we know there is no only one truth.

What if in the next conflict you come across a member of a stronger community, and not with an individual user?
Will you conduct a detailed investigation in relation to your memeber (if it's not top author)?
Will give the other party the opportunity to speak so that the whole Steemit heard a different opinion?

This is only the most obvious questions that you should ask yourself when you acts like in this case with @moon32walker and @velimir.

If the answer to all these questions is Yes. You need to closely monitor all members of your community, otherwise there will be chaos.

Or, all of your members by default are decent people, and to find out it you need to create the criteria for the selection of new participants. And here we get limited closed community.

Or, each community protects all of its members always no matter what. So Steemit turns into a constant battle of flags where the winner is the voice of a strongest community.

That's why I think that the fact of your intervention in this case is very important.

I have no right to demand something from you or tell you what to do. But, consider the fact that @velimir is not weak user, and he didn't ask you to help.
Step aside, don't suppress the voice of another user by your power. Your support of your participants is manifested in the fact that you VOTE for them.