This devil's advocate position your holding is very akin to fascists "just asking questions".

If someone were doing that just to be obtuse then I wouldn't talk to them either. If someone were talking like that because they genuinely believed that and were going to discuss things in a measured reasonable way then that's the kind of discussion I think is essential.

You seem to equate any lawbreaking as requiring handcuffs and imprisonment.

I very much didn't say this at all. I don't think it's necessary for you to exaggerate to make your point.

What situation do you think handcuffs should or should not be used when dealing with someone breaking the law?

Devils Advocate: when they pose a reasonable risk to the public (not applicable in this case) or have already demonstrated a willingness to evade authorities when breaking the law (applicable). Committing fraud: no cuffs. Most low level drug offences: no cuffs. Previously escaped prison: cuffs. Evaded authorities to trespass or enter illegally: cuffs.