Thank's for the link, a very interesting article.
Sure he did harm other people first, and one obviously would have the moral obligation to forcefully stop him, but you say yourself that that would harm him: "[...]and this may also result in "damaging" effects to stop them forcefully, to "harm" the violator who is engaging in violence."
Now this makes perfect sense of course, but it's in contrast with the fundamental "inflict no harm whatsoever" - idea of THIS post. Or did I miss a point?
I'm not criticizing your work, it's great, i just thought that there might be a small sidenote missing :)