DavitosanX

Well, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines violence as: 1.- The use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. 2.- Injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation. Full definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence Intention, and more so the result of injury, appears to be key here. Also, the second definition incudes non-physical modes of violence. It would be safe to say that not all physical force can be classified as violence, and that whether or not injury results from its application is the indicator from which the classification is made. I think it's difficult to justify anything morally, just because different sets of morals exist. I suggest the following analysis: - What are the ramifications of the crime being commited? - What are the ramifications of using violence to stop it? - What is the minimum amount of violence required to solve the problem? Finding a balance between those three would be my solution. Of course, finding the balance (i.e. correctly deducing and judging ramifications) is the real question, and that would have to be resolved on a case by case basis.