> No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. I was eliding

> No. Words have meaning. Violence's actual definition: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. I was eliding what I thought was the obvious conclusion. But let me be more explicit. If someone is determined to do something, and you are determined to stop them, the result will be an escalation that leads to taking actions that hurt, damage, or kill the other person. > It doesn't. If it was, they wouldn't be lifelong criminals. You just restated the original assertion I responded to, again without evidence or argument. Why not try responding to the ideas I presented? > That shouldn't be their role. Violence just leads to more violence. They are breaking the laws they're paid to uphold otherwise. That should be their only role. The biggest problem with police is that they are doing a ton of other jobs that they are not qualified to do. A firefighter is trained to put out fires. A paramedic is trained to perform lifesaving medical procedures. Pretty much the only thing a police officer brings to an emergency is a gun. And most emergencies cannot be solved with a gun. A car accident can't be solved with a gun. A cat stuck in a tree can't be solved (except in the loosest sense) with a gun. A psychiatric emergency can't be solved with a gun. But a handful of emergencies can only be solved with a gun - an armed bank robbery, a terrorist attack. And many more situations can only be resolved because the authorities can wield the threat of violence. Consider a criminal investigation for instance. When the feds show up at your business to request financial records, they don't usually carry guns. But even though you may not want to give them documents that will incriminate you, that's still preferable to the investigators calling the police and seizing the files themselves while you sit in the back of the police car.