So cops initiate force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something every time they initiate a warrant?

No. Cops initiate force intended to gain compliance. For an arrest warrant that will mean shackles and a cage. This won’t appear violent if the offender is compliant. But if the offender is not compliant, the violent nature of an arrest becomes apparent. Then the force used better hurt or else the the cop is screwed.

So a cop initiates violence to stop violence?

Mostly it is the threat of violence that stops violence. When the cop shows up at your door and says he has probable cause to arrest you, what do you think will happen if you politely decline? He will put his hands on you. The cops use of force will escalate as necessary to gain your compliance. Getting arrested wasn’t your idea, it was his. He started it.

So a cop hits first to stop violence?

More likely some other form of force prior to having to hit you. Pepper spray stops violence by inflicting significant pain. Is that infliction of pain non-violent to you?

Justified violence , you should copyright that I can see Trump using it , I thought reasonable force was the term used?

Reasonable force is the term used. That’s because it sounds nicer. If you replace all of my uses of the word “violence” with the word “force” it will not change my meaning. I just want to be clear about what we are really discussing with police force, and that is violence.

There’s that word violent again I will bet you will not see it once in the job description

Does it sound like an act of peace to forcefully remove a trespasser, force someone into a cage, or force them into shackles? The minimal necessary force is very much escalated if the offender is not compliant, as they are bound to sometimes be. That’s what I am talking about. If it makes you feel better, don’t call it violent, but that’s what it is.

Reasonable force is the term I still use, but to use your terminology that means anyone who protects himself without a weapon or others cannot be a pacifist because they actually defend themselves

That’s correct. Jesus turned the other cheek to be slapped again. Gandhi accepted beatings, as did his followers. Martin Luther King Jr marched into the fire hoses. His followers would march, stand, and sit in harm’s way and their pacifist response was one of non-violence.

Ok , non aggressive violence that’s another term Trump could use

This sort of response isn’t helpful, nor does it address what I have said. If someone attacks you, and you punch them, you have responded with violence without being the aggressor.

Under law that’s reasonable force

Yes it is, but it is not pacifist. Pacifist would be to decline to use force. To turn the other cheek.

The use of physical especially force utilized with malice and / or the attempt to harm someone

So the work the police do is carried out with the attempt to harm and is malicious by nature?

Given the typo, I’m assuming you didn’t copy and paste that definition. No matter. There are multiple definitions for words. No doubt you can find a definition of violence that does not fit justifiable causes. Nonetheless, I can find definitions that do fit, as a google glance will tell you. If you got pepper sprayed, would you feel harmed? Would your vision be damaged?

Ok , so peacekeepers job is now like the police and the military legally anyway in that they are all malicious and attempt to harm?

Malicious? No. But that isn’t required for all, or even most definitions of violence, just the one you chose. Top google definition says violence is “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” If your peacekeeping troops carry guns, and they have to pull the trigger, what should their intentions be? If they don’t have guns, but some other weapon, the nature of the intended violence will be different. I refer to pepper spray because it is non-lethal and common. It causes significant pain and reduces the ability to see and breath. There is no way to do that to someone in a pacifist manner.

Right , violence against animals doesn’t count

Correct. Amish are pacifist, but rely on firearms for hunting and slaughtering livestock.

Yet MLK jr applied for a permit to carry a hand gun

I didn’t know that until you said it. A Huffington post article on the topic said “Eventually, King gave up any hope of armed self-defense and embraced nonviolence more completely.”

King’s movement was one of nonviolent resistance. If King had used a gun in self-defense, it would not have been a nonviolent response.

Bit hypocritical of MLK JR

He and Gandhi both used pacifism as a political weapon. Embracing it as a practical matter for a movement is not the same as adopting it as a personal philosophy. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than one MLK marcher who were hosed down had a gun in the home. Even so, being hosed down without defending oneself is an act of pacifism. Protecting oneself with a weapon is not.