Ummm, you missed the part where the man said he should be able to do anything he wants, despite the law, if he feels like it.
The hypothetical I set up for him was a practical demonstration of just how stupid that premise was. That is he could arbitarily abrogate the law if he feels like it and expects to get away with it, why shouldn't someone with more sinister intent be able to do the same? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Somehow, he feels that he's justified in this belief (that he's the final arbitor of what is and isn't legal), but that such distinction should only be reserved for him (predicated on the justification "because I want to"), and by extention, anyone he wishes to grace with a similar power.