Closest thing to literal devil's advocate possible.
I said in another thread I don't think the specifics of who both people are matter at all. It is a type of class war. You can talk him up as much as you want and it doesn't change the underlying: he made more money per year than someone needs in several lifetimes to live a somewhat luxurious lifestyle, and he made it helping a system people see as unjust. That's all that matters. It is a type of envy, and that also doesn't matter. The ethics don't matter. "LinkedIn c suite execs" sound like a gross class of people. It reenforces what's at play here. They can't spin and spin and spin to get people who are trapped in a cruel system as essentially cattle to stop resenting the financially free. Actually, the more preaching that happens, the more that resentment will grow.
You're in this class of rich people, right? Maybe devil's advocate isn't the right phrase when you're somewhat self advocating. (Forgive me if I'm remembering incorrectly).
If you live in a mansion with servants and abundance and your wealth keeps growing and growing, it doesn't matter when you pass a starving man on the street that you got it all fairly, and that he is starving fairly, eventually he'll just kill you and take your stuff and people will say "good riddance." That metaphor may not seem apt, because Luigi wasn't starving, but that's why I said the specifics don't matter. The "starving" is not only in terms of food, but the mental health crisis ravaging our modern society. People may have food on the table, but that's not enough, what's being flaunted is that financial freedom in the face of people who feel like they're in a cage. Trying to tell them they're in the wrong for feeling how they do and finding satisfaction in this man's death is only driving the wedge further, but I'm not surprised that the "haves" are digging in their heels rather than understanding the have nots.