MMDad
Lem Putt
Granted a mallet or a hammer may not be the best, or cleanest way to do this..
But does anyone know if the cat actually suffered, or did it die immediately?
I KNOW I'm going to catch hell for this, but being the devil's advocate here, where was the cruelty??
Would it have been less cruel to shoot the cat, or cut off it's head with a cleaver? Or an injection been the preferred method?
My point being, it's a cat, it's still an animal.. if he had skinned it alive, or set it on fire and watched it die, THAT would be cruelty.. If he hit it in the head with a hammer, or mallet and it died instantly, other than the poor choice of tool or method, where is the cruelty?
I know a lot of you are pet owners, cat people, and "cat parents".. but in the end would it have mattered if he chose a different tool? Or a different animal? If it was his cat, and not your cat, again, where is the cruelty?
This isn't a case of someone euthanizing their own cat. This is someone who hit a cat with a croquet mallet because it crapped in the house. The cat was alive, and was taken to a vet to be euthanized.
If the cat had merely been "put down" then you might have a point, but this is not the case to argue that angle. This is a guy with an assault conviction who took his anger out on a cat this time. Next time might be a kid.