His punishment was an anonymous threat of violence by way of institutional power.
But I guess it all depends on how you frame it.
But I guess it all depends on how you frame it.
> Yes, it is a threat to send armed agents of the State to intervene [1]
This is farcical at best. No 'threat' was made, let alone any of violence. At worst, it was a reminder to the offender to get a clue in the first place, and not to do it again.
I've yet to hear of any bylaw officer, anywhere, showing up in armor and weapons in order to warn a violator, or issue any citation against one, ever.
You're probably the type that takes offense at "Beware of Dog" signs, believing that you shouldn't have to be bothered to 'beware' of anything. :rollseyes: