Well, in your example, I can't run over the kid, but I can call the cops, and have them come and physically remove him. So that's almost exactly what happened, except that the burly guy wasn't a cop (or at least wasn't in uniform).

The cops were there, though, and were (at least tacitly) authorizing the guy to try to physically remove the passenger. Is that legal and/or moral? Or does it have to be a uniformed officer before it becomes legal and moral?

I thought they were both cops.

Having a cop makes it legal, but the moral question is the one we are arguing.

I think the cop has the responsibility to remove the kid without endangering the kid.

It's easy for a couple of cops (or even one) to remove a kid from your driveway, even a kid who doesn't want to be removed. Removing an adult from what appeared to be a window seat is going to be harder. That is, the adult can make it harder to do without causing harm to the adult. (Also, the adult is presumably more aware of the potential consequences of their actions.)

You can pick the kid up and move him. Choosing a kid in this senario is cheating because kids are dumb and don't understand consequences.

If my doctor was laying on my driveway I'd drag him off and then leave. And it's morally and legally right to do so.

Nope.

You have a "contract of lying on the driveway" with him, you've granted him permission to lie on the driveway for the next 1.5 hours, and your contract doesn't list you changing your mind as a reason for rescinding that prior permission, nor has he breached the contract in a way that permits you to remove him.

You're welcome to point out where in the contract of carriage you're basing your opinion. I'm finding no justification.

I get your point, but being this hyperbolic is not supporting your case.

When we are discussing principles, it is helpful to discuss the extreme case because it clarifies what the possible outcome of the principle is.