Get out of here with that bull shit.

Where did I say it justifies or makes it acceptable?

It's possible to take precautionary measures towards keeping people unable to avoid harming others separated from said others while simultaneously having empathy for what was likely a shit set of circumstances that led to that inability.

By all means, if you are going to harm others I think you should be locked up. And given I generally believe in as much self-determination as socially acceptable, I'd even want you to have access to ending your life if you didn't want to be locked up but couldn't prevent yourself from harming others.

What I wouldn't want though, is for you to be punitively harmed yourself beyond forcible separation from potential victims. I don't think you should be denied access to stimulating media, or put in dangerous situations for yourself, or made to be in barely livable conditions, or have your friends and family extorted with price gouging to connect with you, or to deny you quality medical treatment, etc.

The more punitive we make the conditions, the more it dissuades people who are afraid they can't help harming others and don't want to harm others from seeking aid in preventing harming others.

So yeah, of course this guy shouldn't be walking the streets and assaulting people. I never said otherwise.

But it's possible to hold that opinion in parallel with empathy for the circumstances he's in and the life he's forced to live as a result.