Okay, let's think this through: if there WAS a counter-sniper and he'd taken the attacker out before he made the shot, perhaps he would have prevented a much greater evil, but it still would have been murder, because until the moment the killer actually pulled the trigger, he hadn't murdered anyone yet, and after he did, it was too late to stop him. Had he been shot before, he would have died an innocent man, and you could forever cast doubt on whether he would have actually gone through with it, or hesitated at the last second.

What we have hear is by no means and example of justified violence, because it isn't self-defense to kill someone for merely threatening you, just like it wasn't self-defense for him to shoot Kirk for threatening his ideology. It's just different shades of evil. And even if it WAS self-defense, it still doesn't make it good, but merely less regrettable.

For example, the people Kyle Rittenhouse shot in Kenosha may have been thugs who were indeed determined to kill him (and at least one of them was a known pedophile with a prior conviction for sexually abusing boys as young as 9 years old), but we'll never know if perhaps they'd finally managed to turn their lives around if they'd gotten away with their lives (and perhaps a big scare or a near death experience due to surviving a non-lethal shot). George Floyd was no choir boy either, and people still rightly condemned his death as excessive punishment for his crime.

In other words, it seems to me that there can really never be a situation in which violence somehow isn't evil. At best, it can be the smaller of two evils, and therefore it can certainly be forgivable, but it can never be good.

That leaves the question of whether speech can sometimes be evil, to which I'll cite Matthew 5:21-26:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

According to Jesus, murder begins in the heart, and it does indeed first manifest in your words before it escalates into action. Whether Charlie was guilty of this with some his rhetoric I do not know, but clearly his enemies seem to think so (though of course, that doesn't justify their actions). Therefore, it seems most likely to me that both parties were in the wrong here. Which leads me to the conclusion that you were also wrong with your original post, as was the person you were responding to, and the truth is that violence is never not evil, but speech may or may not be.

What do you think of that?