A part of me is with you. The end goal is equally applied rule of law, so it’s important to respect the system when you’re trying to improve it, right?

However, I think you could argue that the jury and its power to nullify is very much an intended check within the system. It’s kind of an ideal situation where “the people” get to bookend the legal process. They vote for the people making the laws, and they have the final OK before somebody gets sent to prison.

But that is all assuming people perceive the system as working for them to a reasonable degree. If it’s simply broken then why would people go along with the BS while hoping and voting for a better system? They can still vote for a better system while reducing harm in other ways.

There’s also the pragmatic side of me that wants to see good results for humanity (which includes our environment) regardless of the text of the local laws. And yeah, it’s very much a two-edged sword when random citizens do what they think is “right.” Bad examples of it are everywhere. But taking things case by case, what Luigi did was akin to shooting a serial killer between their murder stops. And more importantly, it shines a giant public light on the fact that real people suffer and die so that other people who are already set for life will make $10 million next year instead of only $9 million.