I think to consider someone "violent" would require a longer list of known events. Multiple domestic abuse over years, or multiple fighting/assault convictions would also be good.
Really good train of thought there. However, if you carry that same thought on and apply it to the Zimmerman / Trayvon situation one would have to wonder how/why George immediately considered the kid "violent" enough that George armed himself, pursued him and then shot him.
I hardly known anyone who has not gotten Angry and smacked the wall, or a table top. Is that then proof a person is inherently violent?
Well, I would have to say yes to that when that angry person has again armed himself less than six months after he had stood trial for murder and was "smacking the wall" and table top with his GUN BUTT !