The label is very non-specific. There are some clear-cut cases of problem players, but there is also a wide grey area.
Exactly. My character would not partner with someone who was this much of an asshat, so...see ya.
Although...sometimes in real life we do have to work with people we despise.
Some posters are picturing a psycho asshole PC as the problem, but I've also frequently seen problems with the Paladin PC or equivalent -- where their lawful good stance clashes with how all the other players want to play things.
It's really a matter of preference. I've sometimes had games where the PCs were all nice people - clean-cut superheroes, paladins, etc. However, I've also had a lot of fun in some games where the PCs are darker - they're criminal opportunists, shadowrunners, violent wandering mercenaries, etc. Both historically and in fiction, characters considered "adventurers" are often violent assholes - and internal conflicts among them is common. It's a question of what the GM and players prefer.
I experienced this sort of thing a bunch of times back in the day. My reaction was to say that the guards were also in character when they ran the character down for being a murdering psychopath who was resisting arrest.
Sometimes that fits. But also, I've seen a lot of inconsistency from GMs in this.
Village: "Please protect us, heroes! We are defenseless against the orcs and need your help."
(PCs misbehave)
Village: "We'll send out our crack guards and track you down, outlaws!"
A central premise of a lot of RPG adventures is that there is *not* a strong lawful authority to handle problems - that's why the PCs are needed to spring into action, instead of just calling the police. I think this sort of conflict is often better handled by talking to the players out-of-game, rather than having intentionally un-fun in-game action to punish the players.