> It is a departure from colloquial use to describe property damage as violent and it is counterintuitive to describe a "violent protest in which no one was hur

> It is a departure from colloquial use to describe property damage as violent and it is counterintuitive to describe a "violent protest in which no one was hurt." I don't believe your assertion is remotely true. The term "vandalism" has its origins on how the Vandals tribe attacked, invaded and sacked Rome, and it refers to violence which results in widespread property damage. You'd be hard pressed to describe 5th century barbarian invasion with words other than violence. And by the way, car crashes are also described as violent even when no harm comes to anyone involved.