If you ever want to explain the concept of signature significance in ethics—how one act can be sufficient evidence to make a fair and valid judgment about someone’s character—to a friend or colleague, this story should do the trick.
In California, a kind woman named Shawna Hamon heard about a 7-year-old girl with leukemia whose Christmas wish was for Santa to bring her a pug puppy. So Hamon bought a pug puppy, and gave it to a friend who promised to deliver the little dog to the girl in Sacramento in time for the holidays.
The puppy never arrived, however. The friend decided to keep it for herself. Hamon sent an animal delivery service and an attorney to the woman’s Los Angeles home, but the woman refused to give the dog back. Then Hamon filed a theft complaint and police got a search warrant to search the home, but found no pug puppy. After searching some other nearby homes, they eventually found the little dog at a neighbor’s house, where the pug-napper had hidden it.
Hamon now has the dog back, and learned her lesson. She will deliver it herself this time, a bit late, to the sick little girl. The child is currently receiving experimental treatment for leukemia in Philadelphia.
Now, what are the chances that the woman who took the dog, a desperately sick child’s Christmas gift, for herself, and foiled the compassionate act of a friend in the process, was just having a bad day, just made one mistake, really is a fine, upstanding, trustworthy individual and can’t be judged conclusively as an unethical cur (no offense, puppy…) based on this one incident, because a single episode has no statistical and predictive significance?
None.
____________________________
Pointer: Fark
Facts and graphic: NBC
Ethics Alarms 
Mind blown.
I assume the search warrant was obtained because of the backstory. If not, and the police in that part of L.A. regularly do intensive dog-napping searches — unless it was for something like the recent Florida $80K French bulldog burglary which is, I guess, grand theft –, that’s one hell of a nice community.
And the picture is awwwwwsome.
Let’s just assume that she became attached to this puppy.
Seriously emotionally attached because of some mental condition.
Or maybe she lost a family member recently.
It wouldn’t be right, but, she did have a remedy.
All she had to do was go buy another Pug puppy and give it to the sick child.
As much as we know, the sick child wasn’t expecting this exact puppy.
The fact that the woman did not substitute another puppy says even more about her than keeping the original puppy does.
Very true
I should add:
No one has any business getting attached to an animal that they already know can’t be theirs.
Woody Allen would say, “The heart wants what the heart wants.” Of course, Woody is an asshole.
A selfish sociopath, pretending to be a friend, has EXCUSES and RATIONALIZATIONS for not giving up a puppy she didn’t pay for, knew well why it was procured for a sick child, and wouldn’t give it up until the police were called. Let’s assume you leave a CHILD in the care of a friend: said friend becomes “attached” to the child, has a “mental condition,” “lost a family member,” and didn’t think to go out and “BUY” ANOTHER SIMILAR CHILD to take Child #1’s place. Kidnapping. Life in prison.
You are the MASTER OF RATIONALIZATIONS, and need to deal with it. THINK!
The only fault I find here is that the kind woman who who bought the pug for the sick kid didn’t have any idea who she was dealing with when she agreed to the “boarding” same until the time was right.
Are we all a nation of rationalizers and sociopaths? According to you, we are. And according to your post, you’re are #1.
Yeah, so nothing that Finlay says is sociopathic or rationalizing. He sets out to take the most extreme case, they very most sympathetic possible way to view this… person’s actions, and still finds her in the wrong. You are so stinking quick to tell everyone here how stupid they are, maybe you should work on reading comprehention before calling names.
A selfish sociopath, pretending to be a friend, has EXCUSES and RATIONALIZATIONS for not giving up a puppy she didn’t pay for, knew well why it was procured for a sick child, and wouldn’t give it up until the police were called. Let’s assume you leave a CHILD in the care of a friend: said friend becomes “attached” to the child, has a “mental condition,” “lost a family member,” and didn’t think to go out and “BUY” ANOTHER SIMILAR CHILD to take Child #1′s place. Kidnapping. Life in prison.
You are the MASTER OF RATIONALIZATIONS, and need to deal with it. THINK!
The only fault I find here is that the kind woman who who bought the pug for the sick kid didn’t have any idea who she was dealing with when she agreed to the “boarding” same until the time was right.
I hope I’m misreading your point.
Objectivism personified. Ayn Rand would be proud. And that Machiavelli fella.
I’m reasonably certain that objectivism doesn’t advocate deception or betrayals of trust, and in fact discourages them. I’m also pretty sure that Machiavelli wrote The Prince ironically, or at least not with as nearly as much face-value as is the common assumption. Those are popular misconceptions.
Send the dog napper a faux Devil Baby which can do projectile vomiting. That will learn her 😉
The case was dismissed in the interest of justice on May2, 2014. Riverside Superior Court case #RIM1400720 for lack of evidence to prosecute. The DA who prosecuted the case is considering filing charges against Hamon for Filing a False Police Report and the Riverside PD and DA’s office are now in big trouble for raking someone’s name and reputation through the coals without doing proper investigation before going for the sensational headline and the adorable photo op. This case was not was it appeared. Shawna Hamon has an extensive history with Riverside AC for neglect and hoarding. This story made this monster a hero. So sad everyone bought right into it. https://d1wst0behutosd.cloudfront.net/videos/21366.mp4
Oh and by the way, there is no evidence at all that there ever even was a sick little girl. Even if there was, a responsible rescue would not place a puppy with a family dealing with a dying child. The stress, long hours away, and lack of time for training and socializing, plus a puppy’s natural tendency to chew, nip and tug with needle sharp little teeth and claws, would be a poor fit for this family. A responsible rescue would have suggested a middle aged pug who was well-trained, vaccinated, potty-trained and able to be left alone for long periods of time, past the chewing and destructive hyper puppy stage, but more than willing and able to snuggle, cuddle and play when the time was right. And what would become of this dog once the child passed? A puppy is a 15 year commitment. Think people. Go beyond the emotionally charged headline and think.
1) I can only write about what reports provide.
2) The ethical assessments of the post remain valid, and I stand by them.
3) The fact that the accuser is a hoarder would not change the conduct of her “friend” or make it less unethical, if it occurred.
4) The fact that the case couldn’t be proved to the extent necessary for a conviction doesn’t prove the story is false.
Re your point 3: The accuser falsified the report. The accused was able to provide proof through phone and email records that the accuser did not ever contact her. The rescue partner and true owner of the puppy had instructed the accused to pick up the dog because of concerns for it’s safety with the accuser. The defense was able to show evidence and provide testimony in discovery to prove their case. The prosecution only had documents provided by the accuser which were of questionable authenticity. That is why the prosecution moved to dismiss the case in the interest of justice.
The only reason the case was pursued as far as it was is because the accused has a friend who is an ex-Riverside Police officer and pulled strings.
On the shakiest of evidence, the Riverside Police sent 8 officers to a different county to 4 homes, kicked in a door, confiscated computers and flash drives, terrorized innocent people and caused a huge scene in their neighborhoods. Released a sensational report and filed criminal charges against a woman in the entertainment industry, who also is a survivor of leukemia herself and has been a volunteer for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. They wouldn’t normally go to those lengths for even notorious drug dealers.
As a resident of Riverside County myself and a rescuer who had concerns with the accuser and her treatment of the animals in her care long before this case happened, I closely followed this case. They returned that puppy to the hoarder and now no one knows where it is. She never provided follow up. A huge waste of resources and I would say the Riverside Police and sadly the taxpayers of Riverside will be on the hook for what I imagine will be a huge civil suit. All because they took a shaky case to outrageous lengths without due diligence….as a favor to an ex-cop/buddy.
I don’t like to see a hoarder/bad rescue held up as some kind-hearted hero and I am sure that donations poured in to her “rescue” which has no non-profit status with the IRS, so thanks to the RPD and the unquestioning media (you included) this woman took donations that legitimate rescues desperately needed.
I have a lot of problems with the ethics that played into this case, but the ethics of the accused are not one of them. Shame on the accuser, the RPD, the DA’s office…..and most of all….shame on the media for not doing your homework.
3) The fact that the accuser is a hoarder would not change the conduct of her “friend” or make it less unethical, if it occurred.
That remains true, and nothing you wrote changes it. “I don’t like to see a hoarder/bad rescue held up as some kind-hearted hero” is just bias. I don’t like to see people held up as heroes for doing something that is misrepresented. That has nothing to do with hoarding.
My job is not to independently confirm the basis of news reports. My job is to analyze the ethics involved in news stories as they are reported. Note that I never mentioned the name of the accused.