Don't take the cop-out(hehe).
What he and I are pointing out is that your method of thinking is, in its own way, just as inflexible as some on here with the opposite opinion. When talking in absolutes, you need self reflection to make sure your arguments are sound. When someone points out possible holes in your reasoning(and I mentioned I was on your side on the violence thing), you should see how it meshes with your argument, and improve your argument, not dismiss it out of hand as "trolling." What I used was something called a "parable," a story to show a point, that has been around since Bible times, long before the idea of "trolling."
Murder is not always a violent act, sometimes it is the lack of acting, or even non violent; what matters is the intent behind it. Now, how does that affect your argument, that you can never use violence against a non violent act? What about when the intent behind it is evil? If you plan on sticking with it, fine, but always consider your arguments when you make a blanket statement.
As
@11B CIB mentioned, because police act with the power of the state behind them, all of their actions have the power of government, force, the lawful application of violence if need be, backing them up. This should affect your argument, if you are consistent.[/]
I consider any murder to be violence. Regardless, I answered your question. What is required to make him stop? If my presence or threat of violence stops him, do I need to do more? If he tries to fight me, it's he that brought the violence. Sometimes blanket statements work. We may WANT to hurt someone and someone may DESERVE a beating but that doesn't mean you're the better person/a good person for being the one that dishes it out.
As for the trolling, the 2nd question was borderline and the 3rd was absolutely ridiculous. I call that trolling.
