Theologians argue about whether good can come from evil.
In your example (Linda) a guy commits an evil act.
In the process many lives were saved. So it can be said that something good accidentally came from the evil act.
But I assume the theological argument really relates to a deliberate act of evil that hopes to reduce/remove an even bigger evil, like killing baby Hitler. (Who hasn't had that conversation)
My religious take on the matter is that only God can take a life.
My personal take is if I'm handed a knife to kill the baby I'd refuse. The obvious reason; if you knew in advance he was going to be a tyrant, you could, instead of killing him, try to change his history. If you realised you couldn't do that...kill the bastard!
But there'd be so many people to kill. So many countries have committed atrocities...pretty much any country that's gone to war has a list of leaders who should have been 'taken out'.
Then you have local military decisions. Collateral damage. A few (or many) women/children killed to take out one 'bad guy'.
Then you're getting into other arguments; is any war just? OK, defending yourself is...but most countries who did that had previously invaded other countries for financial/political gain....or for egotistical reasons!
On a personal level. If I knew my daughter's boyfriend was going to kill her, and the only way to prevent it was to kill him I'd do it. Good for her. Bad for me. It would be me being evil...then going to prison. Bad for me.
The question seems to suggest an absolute idea of good and bad. That all women/children collaterally killed are innocent! Which can't be true.
So for me the answer to the question is that good may come from evil...but it's always accidental!
Apols for hijacking Dave