yes - which is why you will eventually teach her not to scratch people.

in my opinion violence itself does not require intent to harm.

there are also types of post action 'violence' which our society deems justified - like incarceration - in part as a measure to prevent repeating the offense by that person and as a societal pressure discouraging that behavior by others

drug rehabilitation may be experienced very violently by the addict, but would likely be seen as justifiable violence to inflict

my definition of violence (in this instance) is anything that causes injury, however slight.

I think the case might be made that violence would be 'justified' when it is preventative of greater violence. (though I think there are still many variables - certainty, imminence, available options, etc.) One presumably non-controversial example might be to grab a child's arm even very quickly and harshly to keep them from running into traffic.

(there are other definitions - for example, the storm was very violent, which seem to be outside the realm of 'justification' per se)

Another example which might be in between the two is - she slammed on the brakes violently, where someone in the car might be hurt, but it avoids a crash that potentially would have caused more harm

i don't believe the ambiguity is violence, I think it is what would be considered 'justified'. I think an extremely devout person, or a person who sees nonviolence as significantly more powerful than violence might see a situation where violence might be 'justified' - for example, when someone is likely to attack you, where they would refrain