Again, the proper response for this involves cheap rope and trees. Leftist judges and DAs can't let people get away with things if the criminals are dead.
Edit: My word, 2 months seems a bit extreme, doesn't it?
Edit2: Since I have a bit of time -- 2 months, unless someone changes their mind -- Lets expand on the above.
Civilization is, at it's core, the delegation of force to the government.
We don't get to use force because we've decided that the Government uses it instead. Supposedly, this force is used fairly and impartially for the good of all. Because fairness and impartiality is vital for this process, we've delegated the use of force to the Government, which is (in theory) the most fair and impartial entity availabile.
We call this "justice" and the complex rules of when the Government is allowed to use force on us "laws." Likewise, we call the illicit use of force by non-state actors "crime." You obey laws because the government forces you to do so, the government is allowed to force you to obey them because it's the only fair way to dole out this use of force.
(For further reading on this, look into Max Weber, who defines the state as "an entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force." Hobbes is also a good read, as in
Leviathan he quite rightly points out without this monopoly life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence )
Force is, at it's core, violence.
Ultimately, you don't break laws because the Government will kill you for it. This is true for every law, from murder, to rape, to jaywalking, to paying your taxes. You obey those laws because you will be fined (or worse) for it. You pay those fines because you will be forced into jail if you don't. You go to jail becuase they'll kill you if you refuse.
Jaywalking is only illegal because at the end of the day the government can kill you for it.
When the government's use of force is corrupted to misapply it -- when certain people are allowed to break the law, while others are unfairly punished for breaking them -- we call that "two tiered justice" or "anarcho-tyranny." It is, inherently, a betrayal of the government's delegated right to use force.
If the government betrays this sovereign right to force, they inherently damage their legitimacy to use it. More specifically, they risk losing the legitimate right to the exclusive use of it.
This is not a good thing. I am not celebrating this idea. I abhor this idea because I am not good at force and even less good at violence. Force should not be used against one another, and if so, it should only be done fairly, impartially, for the good of all and -- this is key --
rarely, when no other alternative is possible.
Again, we call this justice. But justice is a ghost -- it goes away when people stop believing in it.
If someone forces their way into another person's house only to claim ownership of it by fiat, that is a whole host of crimes. It violates the fundamental bedrock of our entire civilization -- the right to own property.
If the government lets them get away with this, or worse, if they are rewarded for this as this man was, the entire system breaks down, very quickly.
If the Government cannot be trusted to use their force fairly -- to punish a thief breaking into a retired 75 year old man's house, stealing the entire house, then selling it for over a million USD -- then what is the proper response? If this becomes systemic, as it has in the UK, then what is the proper response?
Remember, it's not just squatters stealing homes. It's paki rape gangs raping thousands of little girls and terrorizing them if they complain. It's guys breaking into the country and robbing people blind both literally and figuratively by abusing social welfare programs. It's people attacking people on the train repeatedly and then when someone stops them they arrest the hero for daring to punish the criminal they de-facto encouraged.
If the Government is not going to punish, and worse, will reward, a thief stealing millions from one of our most vulnerable members of society, the easiest, and most natural use of force is the most direct one: you end that thief so he cannot harm society again. You take back what the thief has taken by force, you drive the thief away, or in the case of the Government assisting the thief, you place the thief beyond the Government's help.
If you cannot trust the people who are supposed to address this threat to society to address it for society, then society has to address it for themselves. The alternative is to stop believing in the ghost -- to lose the justice our government is based on. A thief that is allowed and encouraged by the government to steal stops being a thief -- and the government that encourages it stops being legitimate.
Do you think this is going to be the last house this squatter steals from an elderly man? He just made over a million dollars from doing so with the implicit consent of the government. If the government won't stop him, or worse others doing the same thing... who will? This is already rampant in the US, with the only hook being they merely take up eternal residence, they haven't started selling the homes out from under the rightful owners. Yet, anyway.
That is the end result of "two-tiered justice."
It must not come to pass. But it is the most "natural," the most direct, the easiest response to a corrupted system intentionally abdicating their responsibility to use force fairly and impartially.
To put it scandalously and punchy again: A corrupt judge and DA cannot let a thief go free from the noose to steal again.
The noose forever takes away the government's power to illicitly endorse crime.
If you can't get help from the Government to deal with the worst elements of society,
when that is literally one of their only reasons for existing, then what are you to do? Put up with it? Suffer in silence? Tell your granddaughter to lay back and think of the diversity quotas? Or do you get a few guys together and ... "end the problem?"
God help us if we're reaching that stage. This is literally where tribal, jeet izzat, warlord culture comes from. We must not allow our society to fall down this path.
Edit3:
Oh. The moderator thought I was talking about hanging the Judges and DAs.
No of course not. Just vote them out of power. If we've gone past "just hang the rapist" to "hang the judge that let him go, too" we're in warlords and balkanization territory and frankly I rather dislike the idea, to put it mildly.
How did Null phrase it when talking about Rackets?
"PULL UP."
Our society is starting to reward criminals for preying on people. Just like a plane aiming downwards at the rapidly approaching ground,
this ends only one way.
Pull. Up. Pull. Up. Pull. Up. 
