I suppose the threat is coercion, but it was a lot more subtle and vague than the blunt DVD. It was nowhere near as direct, and there wasn't anything quantifiable behind it. The DVD was the point where it really got real.
I get what you're saying about the relations forcing Hank's hand and putting him in a no-win situation. But I still think the better choice in that situation would have been the one that was to go to the DEA rather than to go rogue. Or at least, if he was going to go rogue, to not involve Jesse so heavily and to just involve Gomez. He wasn't forced into his vigilante methods, is what I was saying. It doesn't matter if the outcome for his career was the same, he should have picked the option that was safer and ethically right. He was not forced into choosing the specific path that he took, threats or not.
And yeah, of course that's easy to say as an outside observer, but that's what I am. If I was Hank, it's possible I'd do the same thing or worse. That still doesn't mean I'm forced into it or don't have a choice. I am responsible for my own actions, not anybody else. Only in the most strained instances of coercion can people claim that they're not responsible for their actions, and Hank's was not one of them.
This is all just a response to the idea that Walt is directly responsible for Hank's death just as Jack is. I think if you're going to start playing the blame game like that, there's plenty to go around. I'd prefer to say that Walt is responsible, just indirectly, and things snowballed out of his control. He certainly did not wish this upon Hank, but his lack of foresight made it happen, just as Jesse, Hank, and Gomez' lack of foresight got them into a similar bad situation.