disconcertingly: I thought thug might be better but modern usage seems to not fit. According to '~dictionaries' bully still seems to best describe a coercionist.
The problem with the word bully is it seems to focus on verbal intimidation. The reality of coercionist would be a spectrum from real physical threats to violence.
This illustrates a gaping hole in human language. We have no word for someone who violates beings. We have no word for someone who respects consent, and its absence. Well found.
For now, I choose VIOLATOR - who Harms, acting upon someone without their consent. NON-VIOLATOR - who acts according to consent of those they influence. from Latin vis ≈ force