People kept asking because the original article doesn't address the "violence" accusation at all. It does link to one that does, but while I do think it's reasonable to expect commenters to have read the article, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that they also followed every link and read all of those articles too. The other article link that provides the information came after the thread had already developed quite a bit. It might be helpful to look at the time timestamps on the comments.

It does sound like the violence accusation was a BS excuse, so the original anger is justified. But gathering all information before grabbing a pitchfork is a responsible thing to do.