OP is referring to the first example used in the article— the Ohio baby “just shy of the 11 pound weight limit” mailed to relatives a few miles away. This sounds more reprehensible than the Mailing May story you reference.

Why precisely is it "reprehensible" to entrust your child to a short trip in the care of someone who you know and see on a regular basis, and who will be heading in that direction shortly with his vehicle?

Would you consider daycare centers and the like to be more or less reprehensible?

you downvoted someone for not RTFA - but post from a throwaway?

If the criticism is valid then its source is surely irrelevant.

The calling it throwaway was a mistake of mine, I should have called it Anon or similar because anonymity not disposability was its purpose.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that unnecessary throwaway-posting could be viewed as a greater violation, as it shields you from downvotes. If anyone disagrees that the criticism is valid, they cannot effectively downvote you.

To put it another way, If the arrest is valid then who cares if I'm not a real cop?

As I carefully explained, account is throwaway in name not intent. If you look at my profile it's over a year old.

> If the arrest is valid then who cares if I'm not a real cop?

In the uk, no-one. We have citizens' arrest. It appears the US has similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_States

Impersonating a police officer is still illegal in the UK, the point is: the ends don't justify the means.

My response was to the comment:

> If the criticism is valid then its source is surely irrelevant.

If the account was a throwaway, the source would have mattered. I think it's worth making this counterpoint irrespective of whether your account is a throwaway, since you made an argument that would seem to defend that case.