Cat Killer Jury Still Deliberating

The jury deciding the fate of Joseph Petcka, on trial for animal cruelty after he killed his girlfriend's declawed cat, is still at work after three days of deliberations and claims it was deadlocked. According to the Post, one juror told the judge he was "being 'coerced' by the other jurors," but after the meeting, " the jurors requested an easel, a "flip chart," colored markers and a roll of tape, ready to dig in again." They also want some testimony read back. Petcka, 205 pounds, claims the 7-pound cat provoked him, so he kicked the cat so seriously it had multiple broken bones, a lacerated tongue, and a chest full of blood. Petcka's lawyer was surprised at the long deliberation, saying, "The only time I've had jurors out this long is in murder cases." Perhaps he forgot his client killed a cat.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on September 25, 2008 11:18 AM

Comments [rss]

MrCow

conviction plz

soopaman

felix sounds like you really want to hear more about ass rape then cat tales. Try the visiting the piers.

FelixtheCat & Christine Quinn'

Quidam, are you really such as ass???? People get emotional because the animal is defenseless. WE don't like bullies. We are supposed to take care of the weak and the defenseless and the innocent. This cat did not deserve such a beating and this man is a coward and needs to get ass rape in jail.

FelixtheCat & Christine Quinn'

Cruelty should not be acceptable and if this man gets off then I blame the New York Post. Andrea Peyser ran many columns applauding this cruel act. She wrote the cat deserve every blow. boycott the post

Amanda Harletsch

Quindam, I see, I agree. You mean, emotional as in subjective to say "WHO CARES....cat people are lame.".

soopaman

WHO CARES....cat people are lame.

Spirit of 76

Most normal people with an ounce or two of compassion think it's unacceptable to beat a cat to death.

It's unacceptable to beat anything to death. The way some people compare it to cattle or pig farming is silly. Those animals are humanely slaughtered for food, not beaten for fun. And you can't tell me Petcka didn't enjoy it. Nobody's that scared of a cat that they have to keep kicking it over and over. And if it was really just self-defense, why didn't he call a vet after he beat poor little Norman?

Quidnam

Sorry, I didn't make my intent clear.

I'm not talking about "pets vs. humans" in this case. I'm saying that some individuals probably get more emotional (and illogical) when it comes to violence against a domestic animal than they would about a separate, hypothetical case involving a human victim. Especially if that human victim is not someone they can "relate" with.

roe

#1, those animal cruelty laws on the books weren't written by fringe wackos. And those who support animal cruelty laws aren't on the fringe like PETA. Most normal people with an ounce or two of compassion think it's unacceptable to beat a cat to death.

Amanda Harletsch

To think it is pets or humans -as Quindam- is to follow a zero sum logic.: Not very sound logic.

mrguy

this was the purr-fect crime.

Quidnam

No doubt a sizable percentage of our potential jury "peers" get more emotional about violence against pets than they would about a human victim that they can't relate with culturally (comments here will no doubt attest to this).