Chris0nlynn was being sarcastic. I'm pretty sure he was, anyway.
Part of the point is this: So many people are hypocritical or intellectually inconsistent (dishonest?) when it comes to these kinds of things, often probably without even recognizing that they are.
When it comes to people we don't relate to or don't want to like or just want to think bad of for whatever reason, we say things like - they broke the law, they got what they deserved; if they didn't want that to happen, they shouldn't have committed a crime; obey the law... whatever. We pretend that those people are bad or deserve to have bad things happen or done to them (e.g. at the hands of the government) because they are unlawful, because they don't respect the law. We take that position without regard to whether the law in question is reasonable or proper. It's the law, so you're a bad person if you violate it.
Never mind the reality that meaningfully every adult who has ever said or thought such things, at least in modern America, has themselves broken the law. It's a throwaway statement or notion - it's redundant, like referring to a man as liking to look at nice looking women (or men, I suppose). It - the notion of someone not obeying the law - applies to everyone. You see, it matters (or should matter) what the law is - e.g., it matters whether the law itself is stupid or improperly violative of individuals' liberty. If someone is bad or deserves being oppressed / harassed / punished by the government merely because they broke some law, without regard to what law we're talking about, then everyone is bad and deserves to be oppressed / harassed / punished. We are, in reality, all criminals (note: that term can be used in different ways, here I'm using it to mean has committed a crime not has been convicted of committing a crime, the latter use is accepted as well). When we think about these things - about criminality, about right and wrong, about whether someone is bad and deserves a bad fate - we should be considering the nature of the crime (or lawlessness more generally) that we're talking about. Murdering someone is not the same as playing a game of poker, stealing is not the same as hiring a prostitute, assaulting someone is not the same as smoking (or possessing) dope, raping someone is not the same as throwing away a piece of junk male with your roommates name on it or checking your personal email from a company computer or even failing to report and pay sales tax on something you ordered off Amazon or... selling single cigarettes from a pack of cigarettes you bought. Those pairs of things compare law violations that are qualitatively very, very different - that tell us very different things about the quality of the character of the people who might commit those violations.
So... anyway... when it comes to ourselves or people we want to like we dismiss the idea that we or they are bad merely because we or they happened to break some silly or improper (in our view) law. We recognize that the nature of the law matters, that paying poker is profoundly different than murdering someone when it comes to what those respective crimes say about the quality of our character and whether we deserve to be treated badly by government or thought bad of in general, perhaps whether we deserve to have our rights violated. But when it comes to others - others we don't intuitively relate to or with whom we have ideological or cultural differences - they're bad people because... hey, the law is the law and they broke it (or perhaps, they might have broke it).
