Well, if you are talking to a Quaker, this would be their view.
he definition of violence I gave above was purely mine, not a Christian definition. Christians are all over the place in their understanding of this. All abhor violence, but the degree of force that one can use and for what purpose varies greatly depending on to what group, and sometimes what individual you are speaking.
Some, such as Quakers, are pure 100% pacifist. They will not go to war. They will not even rise to defend themselves if struck. True story, a burglar broke into a Quaker's home late at night to rob it. The man of the house woke to find the burglar about to make off with the families silverware. He grabbed a shotgun (kept for hunting pheasant) pointed in the general direction of the man and said, "Sir, I would not harm thee, but thou are standing where I am about to fire." With that the thief dropped the silverware and left. That's about as violent as I have ever heard of a Quaker getting. Afterward, the police caught the same man breaking into other people's homes and in possession of some items from the Quaker's house that he had evidently already taken before discovered, but the Quaker refused to press charges.
Others have gone so far as to develop a "just war theory".
Most would say that it is one thing to turn the other cheek one time. It is another thing to simply allow yourself to be used as a punching bag. While "turning the other cheek" can be taken literally, most today understand it in a figurative sense of not seeking revenge but offering forgiveness.
You might find this interesting. As Jesus first used the phrase, it may not have been as soft as it appears to us today. Remember it is said in the context of a few other admonitions from Jesus:
Matthew 5
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
In the first part, Jesus is reinterpreting the Torah, because there are those who were then (and still today -- and I don't mean Jews, I mean Christians) misapplying it. That is they see the eye for an eye phrase as an excuse to get even. It was not intended that way. It was intended to put a limit. If you were a slave owner and your slave accidently cause some damage to another man's slave (or ox or anything else) and it lost an eye, the tendency was to have the slave put to death, the Torah limited the punishment to just the loss of an eye. So, Jesus makes it clear that the purposes of God are not in seeking retribution but in seeking reconciliation.
But as the people of Jesus' day were indeed oppressed by the occupying Romans would could pretty much order them to do anything they wanted and the citizenry had to comply, there was always within Judaism (especially among those who glorified the Maccabbeans who had briefly stood up to foreign rule) a sense that they ought not to comply or cooperate with these Roman pagans. So, there was always a simmering unrest ready to erupt. Jesus word's of "do not resist an evil person" were directed to those who felt strongly that they were ready to fight.
Now, although Rome occupied Palestine and could be brutal, there were actually some laws that the Roman soldiers had to obey, and they were enforced on pain of death. First, while they could be as viscous as they wanted in carrying out their orders, they could not simply strike someone for no reason. Now, of course, most people if struck, have a tendency to strike back. In that case, with a fight ensuing, the Roman soldier could call for help and have the person he was fighting with executed, if not killed on the spot. You know how in sporing events the referees never notice the first foul, but always notice the retaliation? So if you did nothing when struck the first time, but turned the other cheeck and were struck again, this second strike would probably be noticed and the soldier, not you, would be the one in trouble.
Likewise, Roman soldiers while going about town, could simply stop anyone and command them to carry their pack or other gear. It did not matter what you were doing, it was the law that you had to put down what you had and pick of their pack and carry it for them. But they could not make you carry it all day. The limit was 1 mile. Beyond that, again the Roman soldier could be in trouble. So, Jesus tells people to carry it not one, but two miles. I think today they call that passive-agressive behavior. :D