To be clear, I can’t talk for all people, so this is just my opinion. Charlie Kirk definitely caused violence that killed people. He was an agitator and escalated violence against vulnerable people. He lied about all sorts of things including gun violence and worked for his whole career to undermine the safety of people he disliked.

When he died the overall hatred against trans people was reduced. The opposition to gun control was reduced. The trolling and doxing was reduced. His entire ecosystem was disrupted when he died.

If an individual does something wrong by killing someone that has a certain moral valence to it. If they do the same to a group of people I don’t see any difference, they are still acting towards people with violence, it is just diluted and obscured. The fact that one violent right wing person used a gun to kill another right wing person is ironic and has a certain symmetry, but the part that makes me feel no sympathy for Kirk is that his actions were causing harm up to and including death to people and when he was killed the overall level of death was reduced, not increased.

No state should have the power to kill citizens. This is not justice or a good thing to have in your society. But in a society where murder happens there definitely are worse and better instances, and this particular instance was a net reduction in deaths. All of the people who would have been killed by Kirk’s rhetoric are alive because he died. It wasn’t right, but it was less wrong.

So no, he was not the state acting on others, but he was a person acting to kill others just as his assassin. He caused deaths just as surely as the shooter and there was irony in it being by a white right winger with a gun. The reduction in deaths was worth celebrating just as commuting the sentences of those on death row is. It is morally right to want less death and torment, and while it would be morally wrong to cause a death, from a utilitarian perspective I would not quibble over the results here.