Talk politics.

Is an informant or undercover cop who breaks the law as part of thier cover any less of a criminal?

I won't comment on the particulars of this case, but in general, the answer is, quite obviously I think, "yes". Is a person speeding to a hospital with a sick child any less worthy of a speeding ticket than a guy in a hurry to pick up a pizza? Of course. If I steal a loaf of bread to feed my children am I less of a criminal than some jackass who shoplifts DVDs for shits and giggles? Sure

Context and intent matter, possibly more than anything else.

Is an informant or undercover cop who breaks the law as part of their cover any less of a criminal?
That depends if they were given permission or not, I would guess. A lot of u/c folk have to run certain things by higher-ups before they're allowed to participate, I think. There's also the question of standing by as crime is committed, in favor of building up a rap or waiting for something more serious. Does this make them accessories?

If not, Why?
Because a criminal only someone who has been convicted of a crime in a court of law and by a jury of his or her peers. Until that happens, you ain't a criminal, even if you are guilty, but that isn't how our government looks at it. You are only a criminal if we tag you with the label, official-like. Otherwise you are innocent.

So, a while back there was a story about cops infiltrating dog-fighting rings (http://www.examiner.com/pet-advocacy-in-national/undercover-pits-is-it-really-worth-it). To earn the trust of dogfighters, these cops literally had to have "a dog in the fight". It raised a lot of questions in pro-bully communities (many of which I am a member): Were we okay with this?

I think the general consensus was "no". Even though we are passionate advocates of bulldog breeds and would love to see more raids and prosecutions of dog fighting rings, the fact that sentient, pain-feeling animals were put into pens to tear each other apart is irreconcilable with an "ends justify the means" approach. The same activity would not be undertaken if the officers themselves were in as much physical danger as the dogs -- yes, I'm aware that undercover work is dangerous, but not as dangerous as being put in a ring to face off with another pit bull every week, not to mention the training, the ongoing injury, the lack of adequate vet treatment, etc.

I feel differently about undercover drug sales, I suppose, and it's not that I don't see the utility of sending cops undercover to bust dog fighting rings. As I said, I would love to see more consequences for people who use and abuse dogs like that. I'm just not okay with the real negative consequences for the dogs. Plus, I think that discovery of such undercover work will further exacerbate the criminal-cop "arms race" - what will the next round of undercover cops have to do to gain access into the inner circles of dog fighting rings? Will they push further and further into very murky moral territory? At what point will law enforcement say "This method of investigation causes more harm than good, we're done"?