Well, this guy abused his power to drink and acted irresponsibly with alcohol, so by your argument Jim Sheppard extrapolated and figured that he would act irresponsibly with the pipe bombs as well. Therefore, Jim Sheppard did the right thing, by your theory, in calling it in. Yet you still want to boycott ZHA. I really don't get how you can think that, in THIS case, Sheppard acted wrongly. It would be a different story if it were a clearly victimless case, but seeing what Sheppard knew about the guy (a drunk, dragging his kid around, bragging about making booms), is it really that much of a stretch, by your theory about character again, for Jim to transfer that to irresponsibility with the homemade explosives that the guy made? I don't think it is.
The issue of a true victimless crime is an entirely different issue than the one at hand.