JUSTICE FOR LILY! Cat scratch retaliation gets very ugly

[Randall Turner]

I wonder if this article was written with a spin to give Mr. Foley a position of humanity rather then one that tries to cast him more like a convicted repeat criminal how many people would be so quick to jump on in to demand "justice".

 

[Shadera]

It doesn't even say in the story that he came with stick in hand to kill the cat, yet that's the mental leap you took. You're reading into it what you want to see. Is it so unreasonable to think that perhaps once he saw the cat coming for him again while he was legally walking his dog a street over from where he lives, that he may have grabbed the first thing available to defend himself with against this aggressive nuisance animal - a stick? He may get some fines for animal cruelty depending on the judge, but the owner of the cat deserves a steeper punishment for all the things she did wrong leading up to this. It's her own fault her cat is dead. Had the animal been, say, a pit bull it would have been contained and quite possibly euthanized after the first attack. Why are people so up in arms over someone so selfish as to continue to expose the general population to her nuisance animal after she knew it would attack? Is it because it's a cat, that makes what she did (or didn't do) okay?

I trap neighborhood cats and haul them to the pound all the time. I'm sick of my property smelling like cat spray, and finding cat crap in my rose mulch. My own cat, by the way, is strictly an indoor cat. Not everyone finds the thought of roaming animals endearing. If you are irresponsible enough to leave your animals out to roam the neighborhood, you alone are responsible for what happens to them. Whether that be killed by car, killed by other animals, or killed by man with stick in an effort to protect himself.

 

[rosebud945]

Unlike a few people who responded in this thread, I do sympathize with the cat. She was acting on instinct, and I would like to know if this man was off property or trespassing.

However, I too think this story is very bias. I have been working with my animal control for years as a wildlife and exotics rehabber, so I have something of an insider's perspective on how they handle certain situations. People accuse them of being heartless, inefficient, etc, but very often, I get to see the other side and hear the other side from the officers and supervisors. If my animal control is typical, then you can rest assured that they do get outraged where outrage is warranted, and they do issue situations and fines, and bring up charges on people that are undeniably guilty of animal cruelty. So I feel fairly confident that the animal control in question either sees something in this situation that does not warrant action, or deems the public charges against this man unprovable.

The woman is absolutely culpable in her cat's death. She did not fix the cat, which would not only eliminate the aggressive protective behavior, but would also probably have caused the cat to stick close to home, whether it was outside or in. Then, she knows that this man has a beef, and she did nothing to protect the cat or her kittens. The cat is every bit her victim as it is the man's, IMO.

 

[Wolfy-hound]

I saw nothing that said the cat attacked him a second time.

If he went home, then came back to beat the cat to death, he's a monster and should be locked up. The woman should not have had the cat loose, and should have put the cat up after it attacked someone. BUt HE killed it.

There is NO way that "prodding" a cat who is trying to attack you would stop it. Obviously you've never dealt with a attacking cat if you think so. But did the cat even approach him the second time?

If the cat went for him, he's well within his rights to defend himself, but not to the point of beating it repeatedly. If he hit it, and it died, then well.. it's very sad, but the cat attacked him.

The story is written with a great bias towards the cat's owner being an innocent victim, and she is at fault mostly. Depending on the actual circumstances, he is at fault for killing a animal after the attack was over, or defending himself during a second attack. She is at fault for any injuries he received, and should be cited for the attack, and for having a uncontained pet as well.

I didn't see what happened, and I certainly can't say what happened. But if he left, then came back and killed the cat, he's a wacko, and should pay for a unwarrented attack on a pet.

If he walked by your front yard and your ball python bit at him, because you foolishly had it laying outside next to a sidewalk, you could probably see him jumping or hitting at the snake. BUt if he left.. then came back later on, and beat your python to death, when it was just laying well away from the sidewalk, just because he was angry it bit him the first time.. then it's a horrible crime, because he WASN'T defending himself.

 

[Seamus Haley]

I saw nothing that said the cat attacked him a second time.

According to the article, HE said it attacked him a second time. There were no other adult witnesses to the second incident until it was over.

If he went home, then came back to beat the cat to death, he's a monster and should be locked up.

Based on the initial date and the use of "Friday" to indicate the second incident, it looks like a six day gap between the two events. If he regularly walks his dog along a specific route; around a block or two, from his house to a park and back, whatever the case may be- then he probably passes by at least twice a day, ever day.

 

[Uroboros]

There were two animals wrong in this circumstance that ended one life.

Neither one of them were the four legged kind.

GAAAH. Kay, Edit here. Dude has a regular route with his dog. Lady knows this and has an obviously angry cat (it must have been some distance to get to the dog). Cat lady should have had some way of controlling her animal, the guy certainly did. Didin't need to beat the cat to death, but was more in the right than the lady without control of her pet.

Based on the initial date and the use of "Friday" to indicate the second incident, it looks like a six day gap between the two events. If he regularly walks his dog along a specific route; around a block or two, from his house to a park and back, whatever the case may be- then he probably passes by at least twice a day, ever day.

It'd make sense if it was once per week.


And as far as PETA goes.

Keep in mind, I am NO FAN of either the Demublicans or the Republicrats!

I'd like to send them a box of 500 german cockroaches (the good invasive kind) and see if they take care of them rather than swatting them like a fly. (Can I really not use curse words describing PETA? OMG that seems not fair!!) Screw PETA and their ILK.

 

[Abby]

This story is stupid, and both parties were at fault here. But the point is, you shouldn't kill anything unless it is seriously threatening your life. I'm sorry, but a cat doesn't have the potential to kill a full grown man ever. Sure, I'd hit a cat (or any other animal) that attacked me, but I would never beat something to death. That's just cruel and stupid.

 

[kmurphy]

I saw this video recently. Cats can be pretty aggressive.

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/6/cat-attacks-rottweiler-757822.html

 

[monkeywrench133]

This is just conjecture on my part, but I have to draw the conclusion that the cat approached this guy the second time.

Why do I say that? 1) This incident happened in the middle of the street or sidewalk, which means the cat hadn't been cornered. 2) There's no way a guy who's old enough to have a son in LE is going to be able to chase down, and begin beating a cat, on open ground. Heck, I challenge anyone of any age to try chasing a cat down.

That's just my personal opinion, but I don't see how this happened without the cat coming TO the guy. And if it did, having been attacked once already, I don't blame him a bit for assuming he was going to be attacked again, and taking steps to defend himself and his dog (An Irish Setter, NOT a small dog), which he had with him again the second time.

As to whether the man was right in beating it to death, all I can say is that I sure would. Having been attacked once, and now a second time, in my mind, that cat is a menace who might attack anyone. The article says there were children on the street, and while a cat couldn't kill one of them, it could easily blind someone, or seriously disfigure someone if it attacked their face. Would I kill the cat to prevent that? Absolutely.

 

[WebSlave]

This story But the point is, you shouldn't kill anything unless it is seriously threatening your life.

Sorry, but I flatly disagree with this philosophy. To give you an example, I am having a real problem with rats an mice nesting in our vehicles. They have chewed up wires and cost us thousands of dollars in repairs. They did the same to a standby generator I have for my business, also costing me a grand to have repaired. Poison has been somewhat helpful, but getting a dead mouse in the blower motor of your air conditioning/heater system of your vehicle is really no picnic.

I have a live trap out near the vehicles and have caught a few rats so far. And what do you think I do with those rats? Release them somewhere else where they can be a problem for someone else? Nope. I shoot them. KILL THEM. DEAD. And I will kill each and every one I am able to catch as well. If I can be responsible for a little bit of local extinction of this vermin, I would be perfectly satisfied with that outcome.

Something doesn't have to directly threaten your life to require killing to resolve. In some instances, it is the only viable solution to end a problem.

 

[MiIguanaLvr]

AND peta will criticize her for letting it have kittens.

The story might also loose credibilty once PETA is involved. Those people are wacko extremists.

I never knowingly have anything to do with PETA or their members

 

[Wolfy-hound]

I'm guessing they're a total vegan, so that they don't kill animals for meat. Not to mention it's okay for a large dog to bite your arm or leg, after all, it's not going to kill you to carry scarring and trauma, and/or be crippled.

Here's a bit of info too, cat bites get infected nearly immediately and often require IV antibiotics to treat, or you can get seriously ill and/or lose a limb. Think that's a little exaggerated? No way, a groomer's brother was bitten by a cat, while holding it for her for nail trimming. He was scheduled for amputation of his left arm from the elbow down, within about one month. From the infection from ONE bite on his hand.

 

[Tiger Lilly]

This is true

Here's a bit of info too, cat bites get infected nearly immediately and often require IV antibiotics to treat, or you can get seriously ill and/or lose a limb. Think that's a little exaggerated? No way, a groomer's brother was bitten by a cat, while holding it for her for nail trimming. He was scheduled for amputation of his left arm from the elbow down, within about one month. From the infection from ONE bite on his hand.

"Cat Scratch Fever" isn't just a Ted Nugent song...had a kitten years ago that scratched one of my boys (and that was just from playing with it). Son developed a very sore throat & lock-jaw. Doc said it was actually a case of cat scratch fever...of course that's the layman's term. Serious antibiotics and a couple weeks later, son was fine. Doesn't like cats at all now; go figure...!