I think this was very well handled. The base rate of people having some kind of mental health episode (whether or not that's a good description of what happened here) is not zero, and the kinds of people who are already unstable are more likely to gravitate to movements like ours.
(Also I think the bar for handling issues like this is so low as to be a tripping hazard in Hell. It's always important to think about how this could have been handled better, but still.)
Stop AI hit all the beats I'd hope for in a case like this: removing the member once a serious intra-group issue occurred, referring to police as soon as an external threat was even raised vaguely, disavowing the actions publicly and unequivocally. Well done.
(Also, Stop AI comes off as extremely sympathetic in that article: somehow you've managed to get a puff piece out of this. Again, well done.)
Some key events described in the Atlantic article:
Read the rest of the article here. You can find my personal strong takes at the bottom.
Overall, I feel responsible for not having picked up on the possibility that Sam could act out to this extent. There were frictions in coordination, and considerations where I as an advisor and the organisers on the ground were pushing back, but I had not expected this.