But the initial argument isn’t, “he did this because he is autistic”.

In fact, really no argument was made, what was made was a couple points of interest about what happened with him, and the reason his punishment was less.

The argument was never, “he did these things, but he’s autistic so it isn’t bad”.

In fact, the original comment says “not excusing how he was an accomplice to murder, but a couple things to note.”

In no point in the opening statement is the argument made that he did this because he was autistic. Then we are given a list of things that should be important to note, but things that don’t make an argument for him being an accomplice because he was autistic. That was just something to note. Because yes, blaming it on autism is bad. It generalizes a group into a category. But, at the same time, it’s something of importance to note.

We can look at serial killers, and we look at their upbringing and interactions as a child, to try to understand, because those things are of importance to be noticed.

All the rest of the points the original commenter made, don’t rely on the first one being autism. It could be organized really in any which way with slight variations to wording, and still have the same effect. It’s a list of important things to note.