> Using illegal methods to disrupt illegal activities is not legal
I don't know about the US but in the UK, it is a valid defence to say you were trying to prevent a greater crime. The textbook example is that you'd be allowed to steal a bicycle in order to prevent a murder. It's a defence quite commonly adopted by practitioners of civil disobedience, and there have been some notably successful uses of it.
As far as I'm aware, the closest US equivalent is jury nullification, which this guy apparently argued for. But the US government has waged a very effective PR campaign against jury nullification to the point where most people consider it immoral in all cases.
I don't know about the US but in the UK, it is a valid defence to say you were trying to prevent a greater crime. The textbook example is that you'd be allowed to steal a bicycle in order to prevent a murder. It's a defence quite commonly adopted by practitioners of civil disobedience, and there have been some notably successful uses of it.