I linked a definition above in my earlier comment. Violence involves exertion of physical force to cause damage or injury. The recipient of the violence (be it

I linked a definition above in my earlier comment. Violence involves exertion of physical force to cause damage or injury. The recipient of the violence (be it property or a person) is not relevant. Would I consider your example violence? No. But I would consider someone forcefully breaking into a car or someone committing arson to be violence, due to the unusual exertion of physical force. > I think if you're honest, you'd say that you prefer property crimes to be treated as violence. I have the opposite perspective, that most people have a wider definition for violence than just harm against a person. I feel activists who want to excuse low level crime or rioting tend to be the ones who prefer to narrowly define violence. But such a redefinition wouldn’t make sense - we already have terms like “assault” for narrow cases like harm against a person. Violence is something broader.