The Kurri Kurri Puppy Clubber to be sentenced Updated 26/3

BewareOfThe Dog on 12/03/2015 - 17:03
Last edited 26/03/2015 - 12:32

RSPCA calls for help to identify the Kurri Kurri puppy clubber (Original title)

This story is terrible and I hope they find this grub soon.

THE RSPCA is calling for help to identify the Kurri Kurri puppy clubber - the man responsible for attempting to club seven puppies to censored at the side of the road in Kurri Kurri.

Click below to read more:-
the herald

Kurri Kurri puppy killer Nathan Thompson has been banned for life from owning any animals after pleading guilty to an additional nine charges on Thursday.

Mr Thompson made a short court appearance at Newcastle Local Court before the matter was adjourned to May.

A large security contingent was on hand at the court house, with only media and some family members allowed in court during Mr Thompson's appearance.
the herald 26/3

Follow on Twitter #kurripupkiller

How many years sentence should the Puppy killer receive?

Poll Options

  • 1
    None
  • 0
    One
  • 0
    Two
  • 0
    Three
  • 0
    Four
  • 4
    Five (Maximum Sentence)
Home & Garden

Comments

  • cypher67 on 12/03/2015 - 17:12
    +5

    Lost for words, sounds like this bloke should have had the same treatment.

  • Vieira4 on 12/03/2015 - 18:30
    +2

    What a prick. I hope he gets what he deserves. And then some.

  • PJC on 12/03/2015 - 19:29
    +2

    I live in the next suburb. If I spot a red Commodore with P-plates I will report the rego no. here and to the RCA.

    • PJC on 12/03/2015 - 21:30

      I meant RSPCA.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/03/2015 - 19:44
    +2

    I don't understand humans.

  • fantombloo on 12/03/2015 - 19:59
    -4

    Many farm animals are clubbed to death. Male calves born to dairy cows are often struck on the head. Some animals are struck against the floor head-first. What makes puppies so special? (Or rather, why not be concerned about non-puppies?)

    • robbyjones on 12/03/2015 - 20:01
      +2

      Well aren't you a cheery soul!

    • [Deactivated] on 12/03/2015 - 20:11
      +2

      (Or rather, why not be concerned about non-puppies?)

      Why assume that we aren't concerned about non-puppies?

      • fantombloo on 12/03/2015 - 20:17
        -1

        Anyone who drinks cows' milk effectively sanctions - no, PAYS - for this to happen. I can't see how that's compatible with concern.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/03/2015 - 21:04
          +1

          Perhaps many people are unaware/ignorant of such practices rather than have "no concern".

          And perhaps others who are aware, but still continue to consume dairy products (if continuing along with this example), are still concerned and might very well live in a sort of chronic state of cognitive dissonance which is never relieved. A guilt. Maybe they have less freedom to buy what they'd prefer on an ethical basis, and thus cost is an important (unfortunate) determining factor in what their final actions are. Does that make them an evil person? Does that mean they don't care about the animals?

          I'm just playing devil's advocate here, btw. I've been an ethical vego for most of my life. I do drink milk and eat dairy etc. I'm still constantly torn emotionally/mentally over what to do - but where do I draw the line? Cruelty can be found everywhere. But I get that it is still good to be mindful rather than simply turn a blind eye completely.

          I guess my point is that we can't always assume we know what goes on in everyone else's minds. Just seems like a slippery slope to becoming a pretty bitter person if one is to do so based on the overt actions of others alone. Things aren't always so black and white.

        • fantombloo on 12/03/2015 - 21:21

          Perhaps many people are unaware/ignorant of such practices rather than have "no concern".

          OK, so now anyone reading this is aware. Will they stop or be be outraged like they are over the puppies?

          Does that make them an evil person? Does that mean they don't care about the animals?

          I've made no judgement calls about evil. But yes, they don't care - at least not as much as getting their hands on cows' milk.

          … but where do I draw the line?

          It's your line mate, not mine. Draw it where you think it should be drawn. If you think forcefully impregnating a cow, stealing and killing her children, and then ultimately sending her to the slaughterhouse is cruel then draw the line well before that.

          Just seems like a slippery slope to becoming a pretty bitter person if one is to do so based on the overt actions of others alone.

          So the OP and respondents are ok to openly vilify the puppy basher but I'm bitter for suggesting that most people are complicit in the same sorts of atrocoties on a daily basis? Sorry but that seems as random as the puppy concern.

        • BewareOfThe Dog on 12/03/2015 - 21:23

          @waterlogged turnip:
          Cruelty can be found everywhere.
          Good comment.

          Even humans over the years have been subject to experimentation, which later benefited us to extend our lives. Some Doctors experimented on themselves, however others were just inhuman

        • mooney on 13/03/2015 - 03:43
          +2

          @thevofa: Hyperbole much??

          You're claiming anyone who drinks milk loses the right to be upset about puppies being clubbed to death?!

          I'm going to look at my one year old very differently from now on. She guzzles milk… I hadn't realised it was because she endorsed the killing of cow children?!

          And don't get me started on doctors. Did you know they actively RECOMMEND babies to drink milk? So so evil….

    • BewareOfThe Dog on 12/03/2015 - 21:11

      Good call.
      Dogs are usually considered 'man's best friend'. These guys didn't have that chance.
      People that are aware of one cause, then become aware of another. Same thing happens with Roosters.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 13/03/2015 - 18:49

      "Male calves born to dairy cows are often struck on the head. Some animals are struck against the floor head-first."

      May I ask what evidence you base this on? I'm not saying it isn't true (or that it is true), I'm asking what you're basing the assertion on.

      • fantombloo on 13/03/2015 - 22:43
        +7

        Read the law:

        http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/dairy/breedi…

        Don't think it's limited to one dayers (as if that justifies it anyway) - it's regular practice. Google will help you.

        • GnarlyKnuckles on 14/03/2015 - 00:14
          +1

          Thank you theV, that is exactly the type of info I was after. It's interesting how in the "Introduction" they initially allude simply to "non-viable" calves, which in scientific terms/ the most common/ logical interpretation refers to those unlikely to survive even if cared for normally; but this is rapidly watered down to "calves that are not suitable for rearing" (which could include any calves that were simply economically 'non-viable').

          Also, re the info/law at the link you provided, I think a few things about the methods that they suggest should be used "… in order of preference" are highly unrealistic (to the point of seeming patronising, even to the non-farmer reader), except in the context of the rich hobby-farmer.

          Obviously #1 is "highly idealistic" and fairly unrealistic in reality in various contexts; few large-scale cattle farmers would/could pay to get a vet out at less than 24 hours' notice, every time, to euthenase an unwanted newborn calf via chemical injection; even if a vet was always available. Which they certainly are not.

          To me #2 is also not realistic/ is potentially problematic in many situations; the bolt guns require no license but do require experience, and are not a method of killing anyway (only stunning), and the .22 (etc.) rifle method requires that a licensed shooter, and gun be on-hand at the precise time required.

          Then there's "Use of external trauma caused by a heavy blow to the crown of the head…", which is not even given a number. It is stated that it is "…only suitable for immature or induced calves on the day of birth", but that statement is itself very ambiguously worded/ unclear of meaning. The fact that it is not even formally numbered as the third (or least) preferable method in the document, but rather is subtly lumped together with bolt-gun stunning towards the end of the document, is telling.

          It should either be clearly presented as "#3", with its own detailed guidelines, or it should be stated in the guidelines that it is not allowed. Pretending that it is approximately analogous to stunning the calf with a bolt-gun, seems ludicrous to me. Or have I misread/misinterpreted something in the regulations?

        • movieman on 14/03/2015 - 20:38
          +1

          Wow, thank you thevofa,

          I never knew such practices existed, let alone were recommended by our government.

          I'm disgusted and disappointed…

          I'm definitely not keen on cows milk now. Just thinking of those poor calves..

    • [Deactivated] on 13/03/2015 - 21:12

      And fish - went fishing with a bloke once catching hairtail - he told me to just club their heads against the side of his boat.

    • antzz on 14/03/2015 - 11:45

      Sources please. Or just a big bull###t

    • CheapCoffee on 14/03/2015 - 17:48

      Many farm animals are NOT clubbed to death; and mistreatment of animals in a production system is taken very seriously by agricultural consultants, veterinarians (private and government), and farmers themselves too. I'm not sure if you have been on a farm, but using a gun is certainly the most common way to cull an animal. Veterinarians tend use captive bolt guns (on the head) or lethal injection for euthanasia.

      The methods I have mentioned above are the most humane way to euthanise an animal and the most economical way to put down an animal as well.

      • fantombloo on 14/03/2015 - 19:45
        +1

        Clubbing is a drop in the ocean - the entire treatment of farm animals is mistreatment. For example dairy cattle now produce over 7KL of milk per year; 30 years ago it was half that. You think they just upped it up themselves? No - people are ever increasingly exploiting nonhumans at great detriment to their welfare.

        Willful animal exploiters neg away and continue picking on segregated cases like this puppy basher. That's your recourse for the horrors you inflict on others - it might make you feel better but it does absolutely nothing for those beings that you continue to harm.

        • jackary on 14/03/2015 - 20:16

          I love how passionate you are, but this is all getting way off topic. I think that's why you're getting negged.

        • fantombloo on 14/03/2015 - 21:15

          @jackary: I thought the topic was identifying those that mistreat animals? Just bringing it back home.

        • CheapCoffee on 15/03/2015 - 03:04
          +3

          Haha, you are joking yourself if you are comparing to dairy farms 30 years ago. Yes, the production has improved dramatically last few years to good genetic programs to improve milk yields, but we have far better management plans and veterinary care than ever before, especially with improved herringbone systems and rotary systems for dairies in Southern Australia.

          Have you ever seen cows coming into a rotary to be milked before?

          You know some farmers with 100s of cows actually can identify them individually without looking at their ear tag?

          These animals are their livelihood and you wouldn't dare say that they mistreat them when you actually see them working with their animals. Yes, there are bad farmers who mistreat their animals and their behaviour should never be condoned and they must be removed, but there are people like that in every single industry and they are very rare among good people doing their work. Don't judge farmers based on your assumptions because most of them respect their animals' welfare as much as you do if not more.

        • jackary on 15/03/2015 - 05:53
          +1

          @koreainhyuk: Coming from a farming/cattle background, totally agree with you.

        • fantombloo on 17/03/2015 - 20:58

          @koreainhyuk: respect - is that when they take away their offspring or when they send them to the slaughterhouse?

  • [Deactivated] on 12/03/2015 - 21:32
    +5

    Man is the cruelest animal. - Nietzsche

  • lovesabargain77 on 12/03/2015 - 22:22
    +1

    The grub responsible is the type of person who I would be more than happy to see appear in an ISIS video

    • tyler.durden on 14/03/2015 - 15:48

      As the killer or the killed?

      It would not be too hard for him to do the killing

  • BewareOfThe Dog on 13/03/2015 - 07:53
    +2

    Man being questioned over this.
    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2941234/man-arrested-over-…

    • [Deactivated] on 13/03/2015 - 10:19
      +3

      What a beautiful puppy,: who the hell could do that?

  • goosegog on 13/03/2015 - 18:09
    +3

    This low life piece of dirt, now he has been caught, deserves all the justice he will receive from his fellow inmates in prison. I feel sorry for the poor man who let them go to this murdering piece of scum, & now must be suffering much guilt. However, maybe in the future he will research more thoroughly before selling or giving away puppies. Just hope he isn't involved in a " puppy farm " business - otherwise he too should be prosecuted.
    The one remaining puppy I'm sure will very soon be rehomed to a decent family & have a happy,loving life. Such a shame about the other 10 beautiful puppies who didn't deserve such cruelty - hope this vermin of a human being gets everything he deserves for his contemptuous, lack of caring regarding the lives of fellow creatures.

  • Speckled Jim on 13/03/2015 - 18:27
    +1

    This story just kills me. That poor little girl.

    Our recent cat adoption still mourns his loss. I was informed (by the ex-owner) that some years back, his brother passed away. Apparently they were very close.

    For months, Woody could be heard crying around our neighbourhood with complete disregard for his own safety. By that I mean, there's quite a high density of cat ownership in our area, and the small "territories" are jealously guarded.
    I believe he was looking for, and crying for his departed brother Buzz.

    He still does it too. He often stares at the gate with anticipation that Buzz will scoot under it. He goes and lays in the undergrowth bordering our properties where they'd catch filtered rays together.

    And despite the numerous beatings he's had (from rival cats) he's the sweetest little guy I've ever encountered. Unusually for a cat, he loves tummy rubs and will even let you touch his paws. Our favourite game is "back foot" where he pushes against my palm(s) and slides himself along the carpet or grass.

    Animals need the law on their side. Not just in statutes, but in the courts themselves. I can just see this retard getting a fine and suspended sentence. Five years maximum should really be the mandatory minimum.

  • BewareOfThe Dog on 13/03/2015 - 19:32
    +7

    His name is Nathan Thompson, of Headon St, Kurri Kurri.

    Lots of pix

    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2942760/puppy-killer-plead…

    Me thinks he would be safer in jail.
    AFTER spending a night in custody, a 25-year-old man has admitted to acts of cruelty leading to the grisly deaths of all but two of a litter of 11 puppies in Kurri Kurri.

    Nathan Thompson pleaded guilty in East Maitland Local Court on Friday to serious animal cruelty, aggravated animal cruelty and resist arrest.

    Police prosecutor Sergeant Justin Watson said police opposed bail.

    The court has yet to rule if Thompson will be released on bail.

    Police would be seeking an order to remove another dog, which is pregnant and living at Thompson’s house.

    His solicitor said he was happy to surrender the dog, which belonged to his girlfriend.

    • AussieDolphin on 14/03/2015 - 18:10

      I hope they get an order ASAP! Should the dog give birth who knows what the future holds for the puppies in the hands of such an evil person.

  • AussieDolphin on 14/03/2015 - 18:09
    +1

    Never trust anyone who is cruel to animals. This low life piece of trash tortured 7 defenceless puppies! He is sick in the head and deserves to spend a very looooooooooonng time behind bars! There are more appropriate words that can be used to refer to this monster of a man!

  • BewareOfThe Dog on 26/03/2015 - 12:27

    Kurri Kurri puppy killer Nathan Thompson receives life ban, sentence to come
    Kurri Kurri puppy killer Nathan Thompson has been banned for life from owning any animals after pleading guilty to an additional nine charges on Thursday.

    Mr Thompson made a short court appearance at Newcastle Local Court before the matter was adjourned to May.

    A large security contingent was on hand at the court house, with only media and some family members allowed in court during Mr Thompson's appearance.

  • goosegog on 27/03/2015 - 20:09
    +1

    Give this inhumane, useless on the planet, pathetic no hoper as a decent human being a piece of his own medicine - a large heavy baseball bat looks extremely good. I truly hope the sentence involves jail time as the other inmates will not tolerate him with his cowardly, cruel behaviour to tiny little puppies who had done nothing to deserve having to suffer at the hands of this moronic imbecile.May the devil take his soul to burn for eternity & hope it happens very shortly.

  • BewareOfThe Dog on 04/05/2015 - 10:34

    He is back in court today. Supposedly he was high on Ice at the time.
    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3053892/puppy-killer-natha…

  • BewareOfThe Dog on 04/05/2015 - 12:38
    +1

    He's been sentenced to 12 months non-parole.

  • goosegog on 05/05/2015 - 15:24
    +1

    So pleased to hear this hbg. Now I truly hopes he gets his justice from within the prison.

    • BewareOfThe Dog on 06/05/2015 - 19:16

      I think their might be some howling noises in a correctional centre for the next 12 to 18 months.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join