NEW YORK, Sept. 22, 2008
"D-minus" Actor Killed Cat Out Of Jealousy
Prosecutors Say Man Beat Cat To Death Because His Girlfriend Loved The Cat More Than Him; He Claims Self-Defense
-
Photo
Prosecutors say Joseph Petcka savagely beat his former girlfriend's orange tabby Norman in a jealous rage; Petcka claims it was self-defense. (AP PHOTO)
-
Interactive
Crime Beat
Statistics and specifics on crime in America.
-
In The Spotlight
Pet Planet
Learn more about caring for your pet and see some wacky video.
Joseph Petcka, who pitched in the New York Mets' minor league system in 1992, was a "washed-up, never-made-it-to-the-big-leagues athlete" and a "D-minus" actor, prosecutor Leila Kermani told jurors during her closing argument in Petcka's aggravated animal cruelty trial.
Kermani has told jurors that Petcka brutally killed the neutered and declawed cat in a jealous fury after complaining that his girlfriend at the time, Lisa Altobelli, loved the cat more than him.
Petcka testified Friday that he was defending himself after the 8-pound orange and white tabby named Norman bit his right hand and drew blood. He said Norman lunged at him with his paws outstretched and "his teeth were bared."
His attorney, Charles Hochbaum, argued that the animal cruelty law applies only in cases where animals are intentionally tortured with a sadistic intent to injure or kill.
Altobelli said she dated Petcka for about six weeks before he killed her cat. She said they quarreled after going out the evening of March 26, 2007, and he drank heavily.
Altobelli, a Sports Illustrated reporter, testified that Petcka woke her to complain Norman had bitten him. They argued and she went out, she said, and when she returned Petcka was gone and Norman was dead.
Hochbaum admits his client overreacted, but says: "This was a tragic accident. It was not intentional."
Petcka also appeared in a paper towel commercial and had small roles in "Sex and the City" and other television shows. He more recently worked as a bartender and waiter.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 216 CommentsWho hasn''t been bitten and/or scratched while being around a cat any length of time? I have five and have had it from all of them!
BTW, I would NEVER have any cat declawed. It''s inhumane and leaves them totally defenseless.
I hope this woman has totally KICKED this idiot to the CURB!!
Posted by denny1233
It''s been shown in study after study that people who enjoy torturing animals are highly likely to do the same to little children. So, even if you''re a heart-less SOB like you, you should still want to take this scum off the streets. If only to protect darling little johnny and mary.
Why does some lame brain always have to say that when an animal is brutalized?
Are you so out of touch that you do not understand that someone who would do this to an animal is likely to do the same to a person?
He should get what Mike Vick got.
We live in a dangerous and sick world. There are two sides. One allows it to continue and the other wants it to end. Which side are you on when you make a statement like that?
As for the perennial "spending the taxpayer dollar" argument, that''s not a get-out-of-jail-free card and it''s way over-used. It sounds like it would be more expensive to put this guy back on the streets.
I agree that jail is probably the wrong thing, even though the concept of his rotting in jail for a couple of years is very appealing. Since he seems to have a job, how about a huge fine, with his wages attached for collection, so he thinks about this horror every week? And, the $$ could go to an animal chairty of some kind.
- he was defending himself from an angry cat that had drawn his blood -
That killer puddy tat got exactly what was coming to him!!!
Remember...the only GOOD CAT, is one thats well-seasoned and grilled to perfection.
It is only a very pathetic, and bigoted human who assumes that one can only perceive a threat from something if it is bigger than them.
Very small people feel this way a lot, however.
That is a lying tower of krapp
well, we know he is capable of defending himself if he is attacked
Joseph Petcka needs to get the MAXIUM Punishment by law for this crime. He needs to do 500 hours of service in an animal shelter scooping poop and taking care of the animals & the 500 hours needs to be consectutive. If Joseph Petcka did this to my cat I would kick the krap out of Joseph Petcka in a big way !
Joseph Petcka your a big chunk of $H!T for hurting this cat and you need some serious HELP.
Well if it isn''t murder, then what the hell is it? This was a living, breathing creature.
Are you so out of touch that you do not understand that someone who would do this to an animal is likely to do the same to a person?
He should get what Mike Vick got.
We live in a dangerous and sick world. There are two sides. One allows it to continue and the other wants it to end. Which side are you on when you make a statement like that?
Posted by czmdm at 01:24 PM : Sep 22, 2008
I am not saying that what he did wasn''t wrong. He does deserve do be punished. You cannot equate this to hurting a person. You cannot punish this guy because you think he might hurt a human being someday. All that I am saying is that we should keep this in perspective. It is not murder. In the final analysis this was a cat!
Posted by erasmus81 at 02:08 PM : Sep 22, 2008
You can only murder a human being. Killing an animal is not murder. bye the way, have you eaten a burger lately? How about some bacon with those eggs? If what you are saying is true aren''t you enabling murder? If you can''t understand the differance than you are not too bright.
Well obviously a slap on the wrist doesn''t work, so what do you think will? If there isn''t severe consequences for these kinds of idiots, they will just keep on doing it. He killed a living creature!
Like Vicar, you are an idiot.
You dont have to be scared to perceive a threat! Perfectly rational people can react calmly and effectively when they are attacked...they dont have to be ''scared''.
Besides, have you EVER tried to outrun a cat? Even a trained basball player athlete cant do that!
Max speed / Cat (domestic) = 30.00mph
Max speed / Human (Michael Johnson) = 23.16mph
just like a lobster, huh?
Actually, in the final analysis, it was a DEAD cat...other than that, I AGREE with you completely!
Actually, I would lay you Pete Rose Odds that this guy NEVER goes near a cat again!
Posted by erasmus81 at 02:16 PM : Sep 22, 2008
Actually, mine was the legal defination of murder. You are apparently linving in some liberal fantasy land where cats and dogs are equal to human beings. so, in your world who knows what equates to murder.
Posted by erasmus81 at 02:08 PM : Sep 22, 2008
"Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries."
It''s NOT murder you moron.
Killing a declawed cat in "self defense?!" He should work for the Bush Administration.
I don''t give a rat''s a-ss what the legal definition of murder is. If something is BREATHING, can FEEL PAIN and is capable of giving affection, I call it MURDER.
You are apparently linving in some liberal fantasy
Posted by CANYOUTELLME at 02:31 PM : Sep 22, 2008
Tell that to the cow. I bet they would disagree. I suppose you only eat farm grown animals and seafood. It must be hard getting seafood that is only raised for consumption. Your arguemane it idiotic. You point is not based on any legal definition of murder.
uh.. HELLO... it ISN''T murder.
you can''t "murder" an animal.
you can kill it, you can slaughter it, but you CAN''T murder it. I repeat again, by COMMOM LAW definition:
"Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries."
Yes, one should be punished for killing a house cat. First, it was somebody''s pet, and anyone who would kill a pet is clearly (1) capable of acting out violently, and (2) capable of directing that violence toward a person, given that the object of his anger was another person and not the cat per se.
Furthermore, killing small animals (like cats) has long been established as a precursor behavior for escalating violence toward other humans. Because this was someone''s pet, the incident cannot be treated the same as the killing of a cow or chicken for food. He did not eat the cat; he killed it to show how upset he was with his girlfriend.
You are apparently linving in some liberal fantasy
Posted by erasmus81 at 02:37 PM : Sep 22, 2008
You must be on of those vegiterians.
Posted by CANYOUTELLME at 02:31 PM : Sep 22, 2008
Where do you think "domestic" animals came from you moron? ALL repeat ALL "domestic" breeds are descendant from wild breeds. And ALL breeds, wild or domestic have at one time OR another been used for food by humans as well as other animals, including cats and dogs. Killing an animal is NOT murder. It may be cruel, but it''s not murder.
Furthermore, killing small animals (like cats) has long been established as a precursor behavior for escalating violence toward other humans. Because this was someone''''s pet, the incident cannot be treated the same as the killing of a cow or chicken for food. He did not eat the cat; he killed it to show how upset he was with his girlfriend.
Posted by flubberguts at 02:39 PM : Sep 22, 2008
first of all the point here is not that he is capable of directing violence toward a human. He has not done that so he can''t be punished for it. If he had that propensity toward violence and was angry at his girlfriend then why didn''t he harm her. That point is rediculous.
Second, according to your reasoning it would have been okay if he had cooked and eaten the cat. although, that is a delicatesen in some parts of the world and perfectly acceptable, if he had done it you would be even more upset so that arguement is also rediculous.
bottom line - he killed a cat. He should be punished. But, not for murder and not for two years. Drunk drivers who kill people get less time than that. This was a cat! Don''t you people get that?
HA! I LOVE how you guys just keep MAKING THINGS UP!
Yo, cats are PREDATORS!
By definition, PREDATORS sneak up on things and attack them! They dont wait for their dinner corner them and hit them first!
Sheesh!
There... you lose. have a nice day.
Posted by CANYOUTELLME at 02:45 PM : Sep 22, 2008
Actually the word "inhumanly" infers that murder applies to humans.
Murder has MULTIPLE definitions. Sure, there''''s a LEGAL one which says that it''''s in regards to humans... BUT, go further in the definitions.
My definitions are from www.dictionary.com
"5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. "
There... you lose.
have a nice day.
Posted by CANYOUTELLME at 02:45 PM : Sep 22, 2008
You obviously don''t know how to "read" a dictionary. You have quoted #5 in dicitionary.com the VERB form. The TRUE and ACCEPTED definition of the NOUN is always listed as #1 which on dictionary.com is:
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
so you loose moron.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by sfden at 02:30 PM : Sep 22, 2008
That''s not true. I know someone who has a cat that is "nuts". The cat is generally not allowed to roam the house when people are around because it attacks for no reason. I''ve seen it with my own two eyes.
OldPoet, arent you forgetting the scientific rule that states if something is cute, warm, and cuddly you cant kill it?
Posted by JPDworkin at 02:46 PM : Sep 22, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by alsdailynews at 03:05 PM : Sep 22, 2008
OK cat owners...per the above statement, cats tend to bite and nip when they are declawed because they have no other "weapons" as this life long cat owner states it. Therefore anyone with reason would read that like I did. Cats are aggressive.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 216 Comments