A judge Tuesday ordered a Lawrence man to stand trial in a case that will be the first test of a new state law that makes animal cruelty a felony.
Austin Newport will go on trial Aug. 22 for the death of Melvin, a lop-eared bunny whom Newport owned with his roommate.
A witness testified Tuesday that he watched Newport put a plastic grocery bag around the rabbit's head several times, in an attempt to suffocate the animal. The incident occurred in late July. The rabbit died a day later.
The defense contends Newport was committing an act of mercy - attempting to put an end to a sick animal's suffering.
But a local veterinarian took the stand, saying the rabbit showed no signs of illness, and an animal control officer testified that Newport told her he simply couldn't care for the animal any longer, and was going to eat it.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
There is nothing wrong with eating a rabbit. While it may seem in ill taste to some, rabbit is a wonderful dish and is a staple of many cultures across the world. It just makes me wonder if I could get tossed in jail for killing and eating a rabbit, what makes slaughterhouses for pork, beef and chicken any less accountable to this law? Perhaps this is some method that the idiots at PETA dreamt up to make us all stop eating meat.
gr (anonymous) says…
"what makes slaughterhouses for pork, beef and chicken any less accountable to this law?"
Money.
But, you have to admit that wrapping a plastic bag around a rabbit's head is not very merciful. A sharp blow with a hammer would be much, much better. However, if his intent was the best he knew, can dumb people be held accountable for doing the best they know how?
"But a local veterinarian took the stand, saying the rabbit showed no signs of illness,"
Now that's not a very bright statement. Only if the animal is sick can any form of killing not be cruelty? Sickness or not, has nothing to do with being cruel. Killing the rabbit was not cruel. Suffocating it with a plastic bag could be. "Attempt" but failure would be. I think something like death in 3 minutes or less is considered humane. To me, 30 seconds seems like a long time. A quick and precise blow with a hammer would do the trick almost instantly.
Maybe there should be a law that all pet owners should take a class on how best to humanely end their pet's life if there ever should be a need - sickness, don't want it any longer (parent's choice-oooh!), hunger, or just want to see what rabbit/dog/cat/rat tastes like.
50YearResident (anonymous) says…
This story should have been included in todays editorial...
J-W Editorials
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
"What's the world coming to?"
The next thing we know there will be a mouse patrol and the mouse humane people will be comming to everyones house to see if the mice were dispatched humanely in a live trap or chocked to death with a spring loaded trap. Or even worse allowed to die slowly in a glue trap. The penalty will be 2 years in jail.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
I've had beaver as well. A bit greasy, but was a very tasty meat. I have also had deer, caribou, moose, elk, squirrel, possum and rattlesnake. I don't have a problem with humanely killing an animal for food. From my research, the excuse that he was going to eat it was something he made up as a defense. If your going to kill an animal to eat, there are two things you will want to do. First of all, you want to kill them quickly. Fear and panic stimulate the flow of adrenaline and other flight-or-flight hormones that "taints" the meat. Typically, that means it taste different, and sometimes the consistency of the meat is altered. Secondly, you will want to drain as much blood as possible out of the animal after death. The stagnating blood not only will have unpleasant appearances and issues with the butchering process.
Smothering an animal just isn't a realistic way.
jetgirl (anonymous) says…
The courthouse was evacuated the other day because of a dead mouse. I wonder if they'll ever find the poor little guy's killer.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
They also failed to report that the man in question was singing "Kill the Wabbit!" and confiscated his spear and magic helmet.
bugmenot (anonymous) says…
Stop being such arse holes. Making these sky-is-falling idiot statements that your dog's going to jail for killing rabits is immature and reveals a lack of compassion and basic legal understanding. The legislature has found that animals deserve to be treated with a modicum of decency because they are sentient beings. If you wouldn't want to be killed by having a grocery sack tied around your head, neither would any other living thing. Your dog doesn't have the ability to exert compassion and understand that its actions are unnecessarily terrifying and hurting something for no reason. You as a human have the capcity for compassion and reason. If you can't use it where it is required, you'll have to face punishment.
50YearResident (anonymous) says…
Two days ago my dog found a rabbit nest and he brutally ate three baby bunny alive! I've been thinking of turning him to the local police. He might get life for this kind of animal abuse. I am however afraid I might be charges as an accessory as I did nothing to stop him.
bugmenot (anonymous) says…
Honestly. You're so incredibly stupid for saying things like that. Take a deep breath, think before you post, and say, "I don't *want* to come off as a compassionless jerk," then employ strategies to prevent sounding like you do.
If someone tried to cruelly kill your dog, you'd be (I hope) glad for the law kicking in for this rabbit. My guess is you mock this because you consider your dog a feelingless meaningless piece of property, though.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
There's quite a bit of difference between being swift with a blade and torturing an animal to death.
Jace (anonymous) says…
You mean he couldn't just drop this rabbit off at the animal shelter (since he admitted he couldn't care for it any longer)?
Of course he could have!
He better make some sort of plea deal......otherwise he's gonna be found guilty.
And then a felony record!
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
ok now people it was a pet not a wild rabbit number one, number two if any one thinks this guy was going to really eat this rabbit come on...
And no I do not think your dog will get in trouble for killing the bunnies but hey this is lawrence who knows.
shirinisb (anonymous) says…
generally killing small animals for fun leads to violence toward humans.
ask anyone whos taken psych 101
bunnyhawk (anonymous) says…
you gotta love a state that contemplates criminal charges for stupidity while at the same time encourages its citizens to carry concealed weapons.............
is this what they mean by family values??????????
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
something to be said for hunting, and familys do that together. Mean hunt animals for food not just fun.
Centrist (anonymous) says…
For gawd's sake people ... you've missed it yet again.
The issue is the MANNER in which this poor animal was slowly and cruelly tortured, which resulted in death.
Imagine struggling, not just for several minutes, but for a long period of many hours, and even into the next day as well, trying to take a breath.
Forget the humour .. sure it's all funny, in a way, but it is about animal cruelty, not about rabbit stew.
I hope they throw the book at this cruel individual. He had options. This is all an excuse. What happens when he decides to do the same to a child, or another adult?
Will it be a big joke then?
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
Right Thinker wrote: Lawrence is ooooone screwed up city....for gods sake...how can so many kooks inhabit one little town like Lawrence.
Answer: the exact number is hard to determine, but just let it be said that Lawrence is second to none other than Topeka during the legislative session.
-
bugmenot (anonymous) says…
What happens when he decides to do the same to a child, or another adult?
Will it be a big joke then?
============
Exactly. I can't imagine anyone on here laughing it up if his victim was a child. This animal felt fear and died in a terrifying and likely painful way. He knew he caused that pain and death. He's being punished, not for his victim, but for his actions. We should all be thankful a cruel man might get the help he needs (these people are forced to speak with counselors as part of their sentencing) before he escalates his crime. All animal abusers do at some point, if not stopped and helped.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
You know, I would think they could find a better test case for this law: Something uncontroversial like feeding live kittens to pit bulls or something.
I have to admit this guy isn't the brightest bulb in the pack, but if stupidity was a crime, most elected officials would be in jail.
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
This crime has a mandatory 30 days in jail and possible 365 days and a psycho evaluation. A person can slap around their spouse for less time.
bugmenot (anonymous) says…
It's a good, strong law. I wish the spousal abuse law was stronger. Contact the legislature and make it so. People who are cruel to others (human or animal) are scary people who need help and need to be stopped.
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
It was pointed out to legislators repeatedly, but to absolutely no avail. Boutique legislation designed to bolster election totals without any thought as to how it stands up to the crimes involved with battering people. You will notice that they have made it a felony with nearly the same possible max as a class A misdemeanor. They have punished the court system and counties and required them to furnish an expensive felony procedure with no possibility of enhanced penalty that might be excepted of a real felony to the defendant if found guilty. Legislators really do not care what they pass so long as it costs them nothing. They do not care what the counties have to pay for the process. They only care about getting elected at any cost.
Centrist (anonymous) says…
The harshness of the penalty, or lack thereof, may not be as important as the fact that being a FELONY conviction just might make for a good deterrent.
I'm all for it.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
[shaking my head in disbelief]
No... truth be told, I'm not surprised.
Well, yeah, I take that back, I'm surprised by one thing: I'm surprised that this hasn't yet devolved into another thread where every other sentence ends with "... but it's perfectly fine to murder a baby!"
As usual, right_hater has absolutely nothing relevant to add to the discussion.
About the only one who has said anything intelligent (not surprisingly) is Centrist... as Centrism tends to bring intelligence and thoughtful dialogue to the surface.
But even Centrist, sadly, misses the point.
It's not about the type of animal that was killed. It's not (really) about how the animal was killed, either.
It's quite possibly about **WHY** the animal was killed: Fear, revenge, and intimidation.
Preceding LJW articles containing information not referenced in today's story:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/nov...
Austin Newport: "Boy roommate"
Jamie Nixon: "Girl roommate"
The defendant was living with a girl. While there's no reference to any sort of romantic and/or sexual relationship between the two, it hasn't yet been ruled out.
Think about it: HE killed the rabbit; SHE called the police. Clearly, Nixon cared for the animal.
I don't know about anyone else, but I greatly suspect this was some "lovers spat" taken one step too far. I'd guess that Newport and Nixon were all "luvie-duvie" when they moved in together. Probably went out to some pet store and got a rabbit, a pretty good pet choice if you're living in an apartment. Then, maybe an argument, or things began to sour between the two. Newport waited until Nixon was out of the house for a day or two, and then made his move.
Besides, doesn't anybody remember...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093010/
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
"Your dog doesn't have the ability to exert compassion and understand that its actions are unnecessarily terrifying and hurting something for no reason."
This has to be the most ignorant statement of the day. Dogs kill things in order to eat them. This dog and other animals have a reason to kill. Maybe there wasn't a veggie burger or salad next to the baby bunnies. Do doggy classes cover "Don't Terrify the Things You Eat" etiquette?
gr (anonymous) says…
"generally killing small animals for fun leads to violence toward humans."
Another difference: small animals vs big animals (cows).
How about cutesy animals, verses ugly animals.
(and "All animal abusers do at some point, if not stopped and helped.")
How about ripping off the legs of daddy long legs? Who hasn't done that? Are they all killers?
Maybe your psycos can research and show that ALL serial killers have eaten fast food....
"Mean hunt animals for food not just fun."
Fun AND food = ok. Fun MAYBE food = not ok?
Give me a break. No on needs to hunt for food. Hunting is purely for fun and profit!
Might be for exotic tastes though - like pet rabbit!
"Something uncontroversial like feeding live kittens to pit bulls or something."
Ummm, how is that cruel? I'm sure a pit bull would dispatch the kitten much more mercifully than this guy did.
Someone needs to press charges for cruelty to an unborn baby. That would cause an uproar.
======
In other news, two kids were found on the sidewalk eating their pet ants. Their parents have been locked up in jail and now they are living as homeless kids under the bridge.
With their dog.
Searching for rabbits.
jetgirl (anonymous) says…
Agnostick, you presume quite a bit. For one thing, Jamie never called the police, Austin turned himself in. Austin also stated the rabbit was ill and he had tried to find another home for it. Austin may not have know that the HS takes in pet rabbits, I didn't know until last year when I adopted a dog.
You are right though that the DA must prove intent. If the prosecution cannot prove that Austin intended to torture the animal, the case will be dropped.
I sincerely hope that this fellow did not mean harm and that he was just incompetent at humanely ending the pain an ill pet.
perkins (anonymous) says…
Anyone desiring an overview of the taste of various animals' flesh may want to research the siege of Paris in 1870-71 by those pesky Prussians. Parisian diarists rated the tastes as they quickly exhausted the normal food supply and resorted to killing and eating the animals in the zoo, then dogs and cats, and finally mice and rats.
But ahh, the sauces...
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Flamingo tongue was a delicacy among the ancient Romans.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"Agnostick, you presume quite a bit. For one thing, Jamie never called the police, Austin turned himself in. Austin also stated the rabbit was ill and he had tried to find another home for it."
_____________________________________________
Really? *I* presume too much? Or you?
Or the LJWorld and their reporters, maybe?
This time, read the article that I linked to. Pay close attention to the following paragraphs:
*******************************************
Newport's explanation, according to a police report, was that he didn't think he could care for the rabbit any more and planned to eat it. He said in an interview that he wasn't acting maliciously and that the animal died the next day after a heart attack.
"I did mess up, I will admit that, but I was trying to do the right thing," he said. "I feel horrible."
His former roommate, Jamie Nixon, who reported the incident to police, said she doesn't accept his explanation. She said she approves of the tougher animal cruelty law.
"It seems like for something that has no ability to stand up for itself, we need to do what we can," she said.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug...
*******************************************
Furthermore, did Newport turn himself in? Yes... after a judge gave him 48 hours to do so...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep...
Nice try, jetgirl, but I've provided links to four previous articles published by this newspaper. If you have a problem with "their version of the facts," I suggest you look 'em up in the phone book and take it up with them.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
crazyks (anonymous) says…
Oh, yeah, like the most humane thing you can do for an ill pet (even though it wasn't ill at all) is to kill it and eat it.
I'm sure all the kiddies will love that one. Next time you have a dog or cat that's sick, kill it and eat it, and see how the kiddies and the neighbors feel about you.
gr (anonymous) says…
"I would catch mice and row a little rowboat out to the middle of our pond"
uhadmeat, so not everyone who is cruel to animals turns into some sort of sadistic monster??? I bet you even ate fast food, too! Just shows that these physcos love twisted exaggerations.
(As a side thought, with expanded gambling, it would be interesting to bet on which mouse gets the furthest! The state could run it, though.)
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
It was suggested earlier that the harshness of a felony conviction alone would justify this being handled as it is dispite the fact that the actual period of confinement would more than likely be less that for smacking a spouse. Harshness of a Felony Conviction Alone???!! What state are you living in? Other than the designation of felony, the level given to this crime by the legislature has very little effect. Oh sure, he cannot possess a firearm for five years, but how many actually hunt for food anymore. On sure, he cannot vote, but how many actually vote anymore. And, heaven forbid, he will not be allowed to sit on a jury. Harshness of a felony conviction..... give me a break. This crime, as set up by the legislature, is a joke.
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
No one has ever committed a crime with thought of whether or not it was a misdemeanor or a felony. Any suggestion that a "felony" designation is a deterrent is wishful thinking at best.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
Most serial/mass murderers and other extremely sociopathic individuals don't jump straight into killing human beings. There tends to be a long progression of both non-lethal violent outbursts against other people and torture and killing of non-humans. These "cries for help" often go unnoticed or punished rather than treated, and so the victim gets worse.
It's kinda like if you catch an arsonist setting houses on fire, dollars to doughnuts he's been caught setting smaller things on fire in the past before he moved up to houses.
I would hope that in the wake of the Virginia Tech disaster, people might start paying more attention to the precursors and warning signs of this sort of outburst. It sounds to me that;s what this law is trying to do -- if you are regularly wantonly cruel to animals (and no, I'm not talking about hunting or food or self-defense), it's only a matter of time before you move up to treating people the exact same way when you're stressed out.
But by all means, let's continue to shriek about gun control and violent video games.
Alfred_W (anonymous) says…
He should cop temporary insanity, caused by the rabbit eating all his Trix.
gr (anonymous) says…
"people might start paying more attention to the precursors and warning signs of this sort of outburst."
Wow. I guess what I said went right over your head. (Hand making a swooshing noise over head).
The physcos are still spreading exaggerations.
uhadmeat, do you feel that at any time you may start "moving up to treating people" the way you were so "wantonly cruel" to those pooooor defensless little creatures? I'd bet werekola smeared ant brains over the sidewalk and pulled legs off of spiders (for fun) when he was little in his "cries for help".