I want to think of this from the perspective of violence as narrative even if this story can be understood perfectly without it. In this case I think it's not even that he used violence that made this guy so wrong, but that he used violence as a means to silence people. He shut down communication to such a degree because he thought he was above them all. He lauded his power over them. He didn't care about the truth, about the extent of his violence, but only about the propogation of his "narrative." I'm the strongest, and I can have whatever I want, whenever I want. It's something that can be intrinsically understood even without thinking about it this way, but it's a good exercise to think about things in this way even if you think you've got the gist on first reading. Because the way we see violence is decided by culture more-so than reality. So how you decide to read this without thinking deeply about the nature of violence within the text itself can vary a lot.