The story contradicts what so many here took as a given, that Lee was a victim of stochastic violence in SF. The highlighting is in revealing that so many were wrong in applying their biases to the original news, and then using that to leverage into e.g. condemnations of the city in general.
I mean we all know the reality was that people who don’t like the very liberal politics of SF were reasoning backwards to get to the “liberal politics causes murder” confirmation they crave. I don’t think anyone even pretended that condemnation of the city was a new conclusion for them.
How is one story really highlighting something? This is just one anecdote where it wasn't what people expected, it's not proof they're wrong.
(I have no idea if they are, it's just a bad argument)