It was your example, not mine. I was responding to where you said...
even in my example i never classified anyone as angry.

His balance of good deeds vs bad is only relevant insofar as it's used to evaluate his life, but not his current geist (until he dies, at which point the distinction evaporates because the latter no longer exists). But it would take a lot of good deeds to offset killing someone in cold blood. You might look to Nelson Mandela for an example, he probably ordered the unneccessary and ineffective Church Street Bombing which killed a score of people, but his latter years were so impressively reconciliatory that he's commonly said to have lived a life of peace. In the end, it's subjective whether you think he has or not, but the point is, his violent acts don't automatically disqualify him.
what???

By your reasoning this would make them a partially violent and partially peaceful person. But that's what everyone in the entire world would be. Have you even seen someone referred to as a somewhat violent and somewhat peaceful person? I haven't, even though according to your reasoning, everyone in the world is one. In reality, the terms are mutually exclusive. That person would be said to have a neutral temperament because their dark side and light side are in even competition. If everybody is simultaneously a bit violent and a bit peaceful, then what the heck is the point of even using the terms? There wouldn't be any.
please don't twist my words around if your trying to make a point. i've never mentioned anything about partially violent or partially peaceful.

Sure, I already said I was just using those examples as a metaphor. And it's a little bit of a gray area but I would say that someone who successfully supresses violent urges is not a violent person because his ego is apparently peaceful.
someone who suppresses violent urges is not peaceful. the very act of suppressing violent urges will always create a disturbance within you.

Think there's some confusion going on:

Violence is not necessarily negative. Violence is good when it comes to scenarios of self-defense, public order (for example police uses violence to stop stop criminals and terrorists), along with other situations where the health of you or others is at risk.
exactly