I heard an interesting story a few years ago from one of two men awaiting trial. There was a community that was being overrun by drug dealers, hookers, and their customers. Shots were being fired into homes day and night. Families had their kids sleep in bathtubs, because there was some protection from bullets. The police would respond to reports of drug deals going down by driving a car through the neighborhood. The community had numerous marches to get the cops to respond. But they would collect the bullets from the walls of the homes and leave. The activity was all centered on one crack house. Everyone knew it, but the local government was 'helpless' to do anything.
Two men watched the house, and when no one was home they took a few gallons of gasoline and burned it to the ground. This time the cops responded. The men were arrested for arson and attempted murder (even though the house was empty).
Their sole defense was that the house needed burning.
If I had been on their jury, there's no way they would have been found guilty. What they did was the opposite of lawlessness.
Remember, the American Revolution was an act of 'lawlessness'.
They broke the law, they went to jail for it. Had you been in the jury and voted to find them "not guilty", you would have been guilty of judicial activism.
The mere fact that one segment or another of the community feels justified in breaking the law, does not excuse lawlessness.
Let's say that the community I live in stands together in opposition to laws against marijuana use, and we decide to openly smoke pot.
Did we break the law?
We absolutely did.
The citizens of that town should have planted themselves en masse in front of City Hall and refused to move until something was done by the authorities; that's what sets us apart from Islamic extremists.