If a wealthy real estate developer threatens to have my property condemned, and has demonstrated an ability to do so, isn't that a credible threat of violence? Isn't it violence to cause me to worry about losing my home because of a credible threat? Isn't it violence to do such a thing? I can honestly say I would be more worried about that than some redneck with a hunting rifle pointed at me. Why is violence only defined as something physical? Is it because that is the only tool of the poor? You can laugh at this question if you want but that won't be much of an answer.
[WS:] I think this question is rather easy to answer - because the law defines it that way. This is not an exception. There are many things that seem perfectly acceptable to many people, yet they are illegal because the law says so. Anyone who does not like these laws is perfectly free to organize like-minded people to petition lawmakers to change them, or else vote into office those willing to do so. Or failing that, abstain from situations that may bring them in conflict with the law, or take the risk knowing the consequences (and do not cry foul when these consequences materialize.)
I am reasonably certain that if it came to a vote, a great majority of people in this country would be in favor of strict anti-crime laws, including a rather broad definition of violence to obtain more severe penalties for those who break the law. Whether it makes sense or not is totally irrelevant, because public support will make changing these laws unrealistic, to say the least.
Wojtek