Those are indeed real situations that real people went through... but they're also imagined situations that a lot of people didn't go through. More people are angry about things that didn't happen directly to them - but about something they read happening to someone else.

Being angry and working through it is fine. I don't have a problem with people being angry. It's more problematic when people ACT on that anger. Emotions are transitory, inflamatory actions done whils angry can have far reaching consequences. Considering how to make EVERYONE less angry is probably good - which brings me back to my original point. Do articles like the OP help people feel less angry - or do people seek them out to reinforce their own anger. If the former, great - but I suspect it's the latter.

Then you need to talk to your brother and find out why he thinks killing someone over property damage is justifable. It's not insane, but it's a strong position to take. He could rightly argue that all war is essentially this though. Should you be allowed to declare war (kill) just becuase someone invades your country? (Property damage). These are complicated question on which it is dangerous to take a moralistic stance - but that's the nature of debate.

And yes. People can say what they like as part of their healing. They can say whtever they like and it is up to the listener who chooses whether to take offence or not. But that argument applies both ways, you shouldn't be offended that your brother thinks that property damage outweighs human life. Being offended by that is a choice. You should challenge it - and challenge it with compassion and curiosity. Go and read some of the people weighing in on my comment and see how many of them are weighing in to debate and how many of them are weighing in simply to tell me what they think.

And bear in mind I'm a centre lefty calling for restraint in the discourse, not a Trump supporter. How many of them have been offended that I dared to voice dissent to the OP?