Never hardly ever really means never.

If the harm coming to someone is preventing harm from coming to you, how bad could it really be to take delight in it?

As an example: You're a prisoner in for life for murder. You've been in holding for a month for beating up another prisoner on your first day. This prisoner was big, buff, and scary, but you manged to catch him off guard, alas you did not kill him, so obviously he wants revenge. After the month in holding it's finally time for you to rejoin general population. Shower time comes around and the big, buff, scary prisoner decides what better way to achieve vengeance for beating him up, than to take your manhood. On his way stomping over to you to demolish you, as you stand in fear of the eventual slaughter, he slips on some soap, and this time dies. (or is just out for a few weeks if it makes your conscience feel better.) Would it be so bad to take a little delight in that guy's harm then?

Our capacity for experiencing delight at the harm of others can be misguided and ill-applied, however there are likely circumstances where this serves its function.

I love it when rapists die. Long story, no tell, I just have no care for rapists.

I don't know where you want to draw the line. Can I take delight that in competition, a representation of them has been harmed (which in certain cases is a direct result of my win), without breaking ethics?

What if I delight in that they were taught a lesson, while sad it had to happen?

I guess I'd mostly agree with the claim, but it depends where you draw the semantic line.