My argument is roughly that we don't know for sure that people were put in harm's way, and we have good reason, as hackers, not to trust the legal system to reliably figure these sorts of things out (and they generally fail in the direction of being worse for both individual researchers and society of a whole). If we did empirically find the legal system reliable and fair, I'd be more convinced that the threshold for objecting should be "unreasonable".

The action is also over right now, and I see no indication that they intend to do so again. So this is either about punishment-as-retribution, or about dissuading future researchers from doing similar things. I don't think retribution is particularly justifiable, and I think there are better ways to dissuade future researchers, like having a conversation about it without the police involved. So I guess I'm arguing the specific sub-case of 2 that if they don't intend to put someone in harms' way again, law enforcement isn't necessarily right.

(You're right about the highway patrol thing, btw. I think I had it confused in my head with some other recent public/police conflict where the highway patrol was worse than the local police, but it looks like the opposite was true of the Ferguson protests.)