I've already explained this, but I guess I'll do it again.

1. OP made a point.
2. Commenter #1 (C1) implied that OP wished for all people with mental illnesses or addiction should die. (This is the crux of the argument we're having)
3. OP accused C1 of erecting a strawman (calling his argument fallacious)
4. C1 accused OP again of the same thing.
5. OP asked for proof of where he said something that is equivalent to "people with mental illnesses or addiction should die."

As a response to #5, you posted not proof of where OP said that, but asked for proof of something completely different ("addicts and violent"). The goalpost was set by C1 at "OP said people with mental illnesses or addiction should die." When OP asked for proof of this, instead of working with that goalpost, you moved it to "they are usually addicts and violent" since you could not find proof of the original goalpost.

I can't believe I have to explain it to this level of detail. Had you responded to OP's top level comment, it would be a different story.