A better question: was Robin Hood a real person whose behavior could serve as evidence?

does it matter if it's just used as a counterexample to make a point while speaking in general terms?

Absolutely. Theft is violence and it's morally wrong no matter the circumstances. It doesn't matter if you're stealing a piece of bread not to starve, if you're stealing the money to save the lives of orphans, to help the homeless or pay for hospitals. It doesn't matter if you're an individual, a dictator's army or a democratically elected government.

Theft is theft.

Doesn't mean it's morally wrong. Robin Hood was taking back and returning what was stolen from peasants by the Sheriff (and other nobles) by overtaxation and straight up "this is mine now" antics. These were people that had no right to what they were taking. If beat the crap out of the guy I ran down after he stole my garden gnome that's justice of a sort.

Are you arguing that stealing bread to not starve is cold-hearted? That attitude may not he illegal, but it is way more cold-hearted than stealing bread to prevent starvation.

As for the comparison to Robin Hood, that would only be apt if the ransomware only targeted exploitative companies and gave the money back to the victims of those companies.