Two forms of justice are being referred to but using the same notation which fails to convey meaning.
There's justice as she is implemented justice; likely being referenced by follow on poster as being impossible to fight for for a poor/normal man.
Then there is Justice as she Ought to be. Referenced by both people, but first poster is only seeing as it applies to the murder of a single man, by a single man but second poster sees as the sum total of injustices perpetrated against many under the guiding hand of the man murdered.
First poster can't believe that Justice as she Ought could accommodate the one man killing the other and the killer going free. Second poster sees the killer going free as a necessary precondition as a result of Justice as she Ought needing to find an instrumentality to elicit Justice as she Ought; the doer, in this sense, doesn't matter, as their behavior is the inevitable outcome of a greater force manifesting through them. If it weren't the case that were happening, there wouldn't be as much harmony and catharsis being undergone at the outcome.
Basically, poster 2 is arguing on a cosmic scale, poster 1 is primarily operating in a more highly constrained scope encompassing only the murder transaction. Poster 1 may, be understandably upset, particularly if they are of a proclivity to not understand where this is all coming from.
