My question was meant to be retorical. But since you answered....
I notice that you choose a definition of atemi that makes everything very nice and neat. I submit that most folks would say that atemi = striking. More specifically, a strike to a vital area. If memory serves, George Ledyard elaborated on this in a previous post (please correct me if I'm wrong). To summarize, it's a fight ending strike, meaning physical damage has been done. You could, of course argue that without ill intent, such an action is not violent .... Which I would reply, again, that accidentally or incidentally, your intention would not absolve you from any applicable laws.
If Atemi does not produce harm, either intentionally or not, then it is non-violent.
One definition of harm is "Physical or psychological injury or damage" If atemi does not have at least the possibility of physical injury, uke may ignore it completely, can they not? If atemi has the possibility of physical damage, has it not caused psychological damage?
People seem to forget that someone adept at Aikido will lead and direct their attacker prior to the actual 'technique' - they dictate what the attacker can and cannot do.
So if the attacker does something unexpected we may conclude the defender wasn't adept? I understand your point, and I've seen it as well, when there was either a) cooperative training or b) a very large differential in skill and experience. Barring either of those two conditions, on any given Sunday ....
I'm starting realize why there are so many lawyers in the United States.