Carrie Pernula, 38, has a curious way of responding to what she considers pesky children and she is now the subject of an equally curious criminal case. The Minnesota woman reportedly confessed to send menacing notes to a family saying that she wanted to “taste” their children. She is now charged with stalking and disorderly conduct.
Police say that Pernula confessed to sending the notes out of anger with the children for making noise in the neighborhood and leaving things on her yard and porch. That would see ample reason to contact the parents, but not in the way that Pernula chose. She sent the first anonymous note by mail and said: “The children look delicious. May I have a taste?”
With two elementary school children, the family was alarmed and that alarm was then magnified when they received magazine subscriptions addressed to “tasty children.” It took little time to trace the magazines to Pernula.
The stalking provision would seem a fit: “”stalking” means to engage in conduct which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, and causes this reaction on the part of the victim regardless of the relationship between the actor and victim.”
Moreover, specific intent is expressly not required:
“No proof of specific intent required. In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove that the actor intended to cause the victim to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, or except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (4), or paragraph (b), that the actor intended to cause any other result.”
It is less clear why this was also charged as disorderly conduct, which seems like count stacking on the same underlying facts. Indeed, they hardly need the charge with the stalking count.
As for Pernula’s attorney, Debbie Lang seemed hard pressed in articulating a public defense. She is quoted as offering the wonderfully understated response of this being “an unfortunate and complicated situation for everyone involved.”
What do you think that appropriate sentence should be given Pernula’s confession for sending such notes?
Buttermilk biscuits of course. Buttery hot deliciousness from the oven where the other one was roasting on the bottom rack.The aroma was permeating the neighborhood which reminded the search party they should be getting home for dinner before dark. Tommorow was another day…..
….the onions and parsnips, tasty greens and potaoes would complete the stew….
The pressing question that she just couldn’t settle. Biscuits or cornbread?
Ms.Pernula had sleepless nights designing traps to catch the little juicy varmints. She sharpened her knives and polished her old black cauldron. It was just the right size for one of the smaller ones. She went out to the garden and harvested the onions and parsnips, tasty greens and potaoes would complete the stew….
It was time to strike, while the children were still tender….
and easy to catch.
Ms. Pernula was “compelled” to drool over these children, her appetite was wetted by their plump little bodies flitting here and there across her lawn. It was time to strike, while the children were still tender….
Why, she’s no threat to others. Much ado about nothing. Just some anonymous notes about how these kids might taste, along with some unsolicited magazines being sent, plastered with the term TASTY CHILDREN. How could anyone possibly view these antics as threatening? Was this a true threat, as evidenced by an open cookbook, on her counter, entitled COOKING KIDS FOR DUMMIES?
Great. Hire her to come and babysit your kids.
Let’s see how well that goes.
Funny how terrorizing a family is downplayed and somehow justified when that family isn’t yours.
DBQ is on to something.
The REAL crime here is the CRIMINAL behavior of the children. I wonder if Carrie Pernula has any rights? Maybe the right to peace and quiet in a neighborhood. Maybe the right to the enjoyment of her property. Maybe the right to be protected by the police against trespass and harassment by juvenile delinquents with enabling parents.
Carrie Pernula was compelled to engage in this behavior, this flawed corrective action, because of the failure of authorities, both code enforcement and law enforcement. Carrie Pernual has grounds for civil action against the city, police and parents of the criminal children involved. Compensation by the causal entities must be substantial to serve as a warning to children, parents and authorities that violations of rights to privacy, peace and quiet, tranquility, enjoyment of private property will be vigorously prosecuted and litigated.
Tell the kids to shut up and stay on public property or they will be arrested and prosecuted.
Res ipsa loquitur
My problem with letting her off by having the judge yell at her, is that I am annoyed that the “taste your kids” note was anonymous.
That’s different from the two neighbors can’t get a long, or this is what people say, or the zombie stuff.
It’s an idiotic note, and I support anonymous speech, but I can see that vaguely threatening anonymous notes are not necessarily protected speech.
Was it a “true threat”? It doesn’t look as though the local law cares. Maybe it should.
This sounds like Hansel and Gretel as done by the Coen brothers.
Put some live snakes in the yard. The brats will be scared off.
DBQ: A super soaker loaded with melted butter
Nah…..too cold in Minnesota. The butter would congeal.
Paint balls would hurt…….a lot!, so maybe some water with food coloring. Give the kids a random tie dyed effect. Use several soakers. Some red, blue and yellow. Go retro!
DBQ: A super soaker loaded with melted butter
Spinelli:
“(O)nly fat, ravenous Cheeseheads eat people.”
Aren’t you from Wisconsin?
BTW: Let’s hope everyone reads and understands the Stalking Provision supplied for everyone’s edification in the story. Stalking, as I recall, was termed to be downright “creepy”.
There is a lot missing from this story.
Did she try to deal with the parents about the children who were trespassing on her property and leaving things on her porch?
Did the parents even attempt to control their loud and obnoxious children? Or did they tell her to pound sand?
How old are the children? Old enough to know better or just small enough to not realize that what they are doing is wrong and annoying?
What times of the day or night are these kids being unruly?
Does this crazy lady work nights and can’t get any sleep during the day. That would set ME off.
How long has this whole unruly kids and nutty lady event been going on? A few days? Weeks? Months?
My answer to these types of things is a super soaker 😀 Squirt the little bstds
Joking….sorta.
KCF, LOL!
I wouldn’t be surprised if she has more than one cat.
Well, people say “you look good enough to eat” all the time to children. Under this statute they could be convicted. The statute is too broad.
. . .is not required.
Ahhh, yes, of course it’s safe it’s safe to release this lunatic–just as long as she is not sending menacing notes to MY home, stating that MY children look delicious and that she is interested in tasting them. Of course, she’s just an innocent, little, pale elf, who has paid for magazine subscriptions to be sent to the home of ANOTHER family’s home, addressed to TASTY CHILDREN. Right? What could possibly go wrong here? Absolutely nothing, especially since her demented focus is not being aimed in MY direction and at MY family. A simple reading of what constitutes stalking should be sufficient, where specific intent
bigfatmike: Clever reference to Swift’s satirical essay. Not sure it’s safe to expose other people to CP.