Puppy Parcel: Minneapolis Woman Tries To Mail Puppy

Stacey Champion, 39, is not exactly a puppy person. Champion has been charged with animal cruelty after postal employees found a puppy in a box she was sending to a relative. Her defense: she paid extra for two-day priority mail.

When the box fell off a counter, the mail staff heard the poodle-mixed pup panting inside of the box. Pete Nowacki of the Postal Service warned other customers “a puppy is a definite no-no.” The puppy was a present for a relative.

Source: CBS

27 thoughts on “Puppy Parcel: Minneapolis Woman Tries To Mail Puppy”

  1. mespo727272
    1, February 2, 2011 at 3:09 pm
    Was it an air-dale? Ok, there I’ve said it. Now crucify me! 🙂

    ================================================

    Don’t quit your day job ….

  2. I hope this puppy packaging incident was not inspired by two recent videos on the Turley Blog on the subject of “How to Wrap a Kitteh”.

  3. Antidote to the authoritarian tyranny of the adversarial system:

    No MISTAKE Ever Actually Made Either
    Could or Should have Been Avoided;
    This is TRUE Regardless of the Nature of
    The Mistake Made or Its Consequences.

    Why so? The idea may be simple;
    THE WORDS MAY BE DIFFICULT.

    For a person who made a particular mistake
    to have known for sure how to avoid making
    the particular mistake before making it,
    the person making the particular mistake would
    necessarily have to have made the exact
    (time, place, and manner) particular mistake
    before making it, in order to know for sure
    what would have needed to be done differently
    than was actually done, and could only
    have learned this for sure by
    HAVING MADE THE PARTICULAR MISTAKE
    in the exact time, place, and manner of
    the particular mistake BEFORE MAKING IT.

    WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY and ETERNALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    Avoidable mistakes never occur.

    Avoidable mistakes cannot occur,
    because they are always avoided;
    because, if they were not avoided,
    they were actually unavoidable.

    Unavoidable mistakes always occur,
    because they are always unavoidable.

    Thus, we only learn about unavoidable mistakes —
    because avoidable mistakes,
    by definition and fact,
    NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

    Believing by mistake
    that avoidable mistakes happen
    is itself an unavoidable mistake,
    until it has become possible to learn
    to understand accuretely the nature
    and purpose of mistakes.

    Mistakes happen because
    people are always
    doing something never
    exactly, in every detail,
    done before.

    There are names for doing something
    which never was done before.

    One such name is “learning.”

    I have invested my whole life
    in an effort of learning…
    Learning why people act in ways
    as though intentionally hurtful;
    Learning how people may learn how
    to never be intentionally hurtful.

    If it is hurtful, it is wrong.
    It is right to avoid wrongdoing.
    It is right to learn to avoid wrongdoing.
    It is helpful to learn what is hurtful.
    What is hurtful is learned when something hurtful happens.
    It is right for hurtful things to happen, to learn what is hurtful.
    It is right to do hurtful things so hurtful things happen.
    It is right to learn to avoid wrongdoing
    It is right to do what is wrong.
    Nothing is actually wrong.

    Is this so simple that only a very little child can understand it?

    (From an unpublished work © 2010 Rev. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.)
    Used with written permission, this writing being the permission.

    Scientifically valid rebuttal is urgently requested; to be scientifically valid, the rebuttal needs to be actually demonstrable, and not based on a mere superstition of one or another kind.

  4. mespo….that was funny….

    Chan whats your response to this….it is cheaper to mail the puppy…therefore…it is morally acceptable to do so at the least expensive avenue available…. is that correct?

  5. rafflaw
    1, February 2, 2011 at 1:12 pm
    Could this woman live in Michele Bachmann’s district?? I am just asking??

    ==============================================

    Bachmann’s district borders Minneapolis and runs N.W so it’s possible …

  6. Were I asked, and I would refuse to reply if asked, I would otherwise guess that, were any person to be an idiot, the greatest idiot of all would expect someone to know something not yet learned and/or to understand something not already done.

    In other words, any one who deems Stacey Champion to be “an idiot” because of what she did, is delusionally projecting vastly greater self-idiocy onto the person so labeled.

    Yet we are not idiots, no person is actually an idiot.

    My work as a bioengineer is of evolutionary biology, and those who have bothered to understand my work have consistently suggested that it is of the “scientific revolution” sort of evolutionary punctuated equilibrium.

    As an activity of human brain biology, as human brain activity evolves, so do human brain models of existence. One some such model of existence is the human brain activity often named “law.”

    The law is evolving. The universe is evolving, as is every aspect of the universe.

    One might regard the present state of the law as now being in a mass-extinction evolutionary event. I come as a bioengineer to share what I regard as plausibly worth saving and what of the law may need to die that the rest may live.

    The most profound difficulty I experience in my work is my being absolutely and totally prohibited from actually using any adversarial method, technique or way of developing and sharing the work, for, the very moment I actually use the first infinitesimal aspect of adversariality, my work is forever after destroyed.

    That I experience others as though terrified to carefully, truthfully and diligently examine my work is merely an indicator of how utterly profoundly addictive the adversarial system really is.

    Projection of self-imago, if self-imago be disastrously distorted by events outside a person’s actual locus of control may be the most dangerous aspect of existence that may ever exist.

    I come only to be of decent, truthful, authentic help.

  7. rafflaw,

    “Could this woman live in Michele Bachmann’s district?? I am just asking??”

    D’OH!

  8. That poor puppy!

    Michaelb:

    Thanks for the link – I hope she does face criminal charges. What an idiot!

  9. Perhaps a cherry on the cake I just baked would be a tasty enhancement.

    I remember when Mohammad Ali was yet known as Cassius Clay.

    I remember when he told of the “dance” he would do to win the title.

    He so danced and won the title.

    I learned a valuable lesson from him.

    The words here are my version of the dance Mohammad Ali taught me when his name in use was Cassius Clay.

    I endeavor to emulate my main men.

    Dance, dance, and the dance goes on.

    The dance of the creative evolution of human society.

    Dance in heaven, dance in hell, dance wherever you may be, and just dance, just dance.

    For the sake of justice. Dance the dance of life. La Kayim!

  10. In my Jan. 31, 2011, comment in the thread, “playing-it-straight…” I wrote, and, for ease of understanding, here repeat:

    [begin quote]
    I suppose I might usefully give a very brief summary of my grasp of the adversarial system, the better to learn whether or not I actually understand it at all. The following summary leaves out many details, else it would not be brief…

    The purpose of the adversarial system is dispute resolution. Absent a dispute, the adversarial system is quiescent. To activate the adversarial system, a claim needs to be brought before the system by a claimant. The claimant, via the court, activates the respondent by bringing to the claim to the respondent’s attention. Claimant and respondent put forth their claims and counter-claims as evidence. The court determines what of the claims and counter-claims comprise valid evidence, “weighs” the evidence of claimant and respondent, and whether the claimant or respondent prevails is determined by the relative weight of the valid evidence each has provided. Claims not rebutted are intrinsically valid. Through precedent, what is and is not valid evidence is established. Through precedent, procedure is made person-neutral. The court procedure is designed to exclude from the decision everything except the weight of the evidence. This gives the court impartiality as to persons.

    Which basic, absolutely essential, core features did I miss?
    [end quote]

    That understanding is the essence of many dialogues among Sidney M. Perlstadt, Esq., Bessie Lieberman Lendrum Perlstadt, M.D. (aka, Dr. Bessie Lendrum) and myself, during the latter part of the decade 1961-1970. Those dialogues were as though among peers sharing their experiences and undestandings.

    To those dialogues, Mr. Perlstadt brought his understanding of law and law procedure. To those dialogues, Dr. Lendrum brought her understanding of the effect of law and law procedure on human health. To those dialogues, brought the ways of bioengineering.

    One central activity of mine, as circumstances have allowed, has been to ferret out and rectify any errors within the legal-medical-bioengineering model of humanity which we three developed.

    As to how to argue a case for a client, I understand Mr. Perlstadt understood adversarial procedure in much the following way:

    If the law is on your side, argue the law. In a court of law, arguing the law is the strongest position if it is available.

    If the law is not on your side and the facts are on your side, argue the facts. In a court of law, arguing the facts is the second strongest position if it is available.

    If both law and facts are not on your side, argue the truth. In a court of law, arguing the truth is the third strongest position if it is available.

    If none of law, facts, or truth are on your side, lie like hell in trying to create a diversion which the other side cannot overcome. In a court of law, lying like hell is the final recourse for maintaining the adversarial process.

    Once again, “Which basic, absolutely essential, core features did I miss?”

    The reason, as best I can here put it, that, for myself, I categorically reject “belief in the adversarial system,” is simply that, in terms of human brain biology, I find the adversarial system to generate inextricably catastrophically abusive trauma.

    Said trauma forms a self-referential trap for those who “believe in the adversarial system.”

    This trap is of a particularly vicious form; it can and does entrap the most truthful people in the worst deception. And, the more “intelligent” a person is, the more vicious becomes the entrapment.

    Someone whose actual life circumstances could not prevent the person from actually intending to ship a puppy by priority mail as a way to lovingly send the puppy to a much loved relative did as was done for want of any way to actually understand how to do any better.

    Faulting a person for not knowing or understanding something the actual person had not been given the actual opportunity to know or learn is the essence of the vicious cycle entrapment of the adversarial system. It defines individual actual people as not being who they actually are, and not having had the actual life experiences they, as individuals, have actually been given.

    Here comes before the court, the petitioner for kindness, decency, and direct truthfulness, Brian, with the claim, made without adversariality, that the adversarial system is its own best adversary; that the adversarial system is the result of human brain damage which causes the adversarial system to caue the brain damage which causes the adversarial system which…

    Alas, though that may appear as though of needing an infinite regression to resolve, it is of a single two-step process, replicated in many diverse ways. Remediation of the two step process, will identically accomplish the remediation of the entire panoply of diverse replications.

    I have put forth the philosophical argument that the adversarial system is inextricably dishonest and deceptive. I have put forth the philosophical argument that the deceptive and dishonest aspects (both beliefs and belief-generating behaviors) have the property that, once believed and acted upon, become relentlessly self-reinforcing, effectively destroying a person’s capacity to recognize the deception and dishonesty of the adversarial system.

    If Stacy Champion was supposed to know to not ship a puppy by priority mail, and if no one ever gave her practicable, actual access to knowing or understanding why to not do that, is her action not vastly more forgivable than the responses of the those who comment on this blawg?

    I have given irrebuttable after irrebuttable claim here. Not one of the claims I find irrebuttable which I have presented on this blawg has actually been rebutted.

    If ignorance of the law is not to be excused, I find I must needs be have achievable access to fully understanding every law which, in the normal course of my life, I may be, after the fact, be deemed to have violated, else the law is a vicious cycle entrapment for me, an entrapment into my being tyrannically coerced into becoming dishonest and deceptive.

    If, to avoid being in violation of any law, I need to perfectly understand every law which I may inadvertently violate if unaware, my first need is to know exactly how many laws there are, so that I do not overlook one and fail to study it adequately well as to be perfectly able to avoid violating it.

    Absent an exact list of every law, I have no way to know whether I have overlooked a law, which, by actually being unaware of it, may unwittingly and unknowingly violate against my conscientious will.

    Solve that problem, how I can perfectly know and understand every law prior to any opportunity to violate any law, and I shall have no objection to the adversarial system.

    It is not that people are imperfect, it is simply that the law is not yet complete, and, being complete, is imperfect, and said imperfection is exactly the adversarial system itself.

    If I have here been stating, in many complementary ways, the nature of the imperfection of the law as the situational factor of human society which generates the false belief in human imperfection by making humans believe that humans are in an adversarial relationship with humans, how is it possible for anyone, in any way honest, truthful, decent, or civil to find fault with Stacey Champion without being in even greater fault regarding oneself?

    I request honest, truthful objections, that I may learn whether I am able to overcome them.

    Perhaps it be unwise for people in brick houses to throw glasses.

    My wife and I live in a frame house.

    My dad was taught the carpentry trade, to master carpenter level, by his dad. My dad similarly taught me.

    I know and understand how to frame a house. I have done rough carpentry.

    While it is fine with me to frame a house, I decry framing people.

    It is rough on people to be framed.

  11. Hey! On the bright side? For once stupidity does have criminal consequences.

Comments are closed.