"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

(CBS/AP)  A former minor league baseball player was "washed up" and had "zero income and no prospects" last year when he became jealous and killed his girlfriend's cat, a prosecutor said Monday.

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.

[kutyadog1]

Self defense my butt! The simple fact is that the idiot was drunk and looking for a fight. So what does he do...take it out on a poor 8lb cat the has no claws. What a man, not! I hope he does go to jail because he would deserve it.

[jamster31]

Put him in prison. This says a lot about his cowardly murdering charactor. This is murder to an animal. Most serial killers killed animals first.

[feddupp]

WOW! Great BIG ballplayer DEFEATS tiny little 8-pound cat--declawed, at that! You must be SO PROUD!!

Who 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!!

[smurfcrusher]

Let''s throw a lion in a cage with this guy and THEN let him claim self-defense. If he survives, he''s free.

[cdfoxtrot3]

Are you idiots kidding.If he did kill this cat for any other reason than self defense then he is cruel and uncaring. But 2 years in prison? Spending the tax payers money with a jury trial over a friggen cat!If convicted and sent to the big house with all the killers, child molesters, perverts, etc.and when asked hey pal, what are you up for? I killed a cat! Whoa, lets keep this guy away from general population.

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.

[czmdm]

"but killing a cat does not equate to murder."

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?

[greeneyes222]

How on earth does a grown man claim self-defense against an 8 lb. cat? That''s ludicrous.

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.

[dooddad]

What a A-#1-Jerk!

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.

[thevicar1]

I TOLD YOU GUYS HE WAS INNOCENT!!!

- 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.

[thevicar1]

How on earth does a grown man claim self-defense against an 8 lb. cat? Thats ludicrous --------------------------------- Posted by greeneyes222


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.

[thevicar1]

Its been shown in study after study that people who enjoy torturing animals are highly likely to do the same to little children ------------------------------------------------------ Posted by cdfoxtrot3


That is a lying tower of krapp

[wednesday08-2009]

This guy should never be allowed near animals or children. I shudder to think what someone like this is capable of.

[sioux4life1]

What a load of poop. First off why doesn''t CBS publish a photo of this jerk with this story? And jerk doesn''t describe what I would really call his guy. Second I have cats, never in their lives have they attacked anyone. So hey macho man, how do you defend yourself against a 8 pound no claws cat when your plastered? Do you really think we are stupid? I say put him in with Micheal Vic and be done with it.

[thevicar1]

This guy should never be allowed near animals or children. I shudder to think what someone like this is capable of ------------------------------------------------------ Posted by Wednesday08


well, we know he is capable of defending himself if he is attacked

[love4all2]

Boy the idiots are out here today. the guy killed a animal. The cat was also de-clawed. so how scared could he be. he should have just left instead of killing the cat. he hurt this animal very badly before putting it out of its misery. I am not cat fan by any means but this idiot deserves to do jail time.

[xmanborg]

Joseph Petcka is a pathetic HUMAN. I have NEVER seen a cat draw blood unless being teased or defending them selves.

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.

[love4all2]

TheVicar1 you find every excuse for the losers that stories come out on. Defend himself from a clawless animal? the DA is right he is just a washed up has been just a piece of arm candy. I would vote to convict if i was on the jury. he needs to meet Buba

[cmp271]

What this puke did to the cat was outright murder and cruelty. He should be put away for 2-5 years. If he would kill a harmless cat, just think what he is capable of doing to a human being, not just children either. I wonder if he has been apprehended for physical abuse of any women? She is lucky she escaped, she should have kicked him out and stayed home with her kitty, the cat would be alive today. The poor cat, being tortured and killed like this, bless his soul. What an awful way for him to die. I hope the murderer goes to jail and some big guy beats him up pronto-he deserves it. I have always had cats and if anyone touched any of them, goddess help them!!! The same for dogs too! Put him in with Vic. Put them both on leashes and tie them to a stake.

[erasmus81]

"...but killing a cat does not equate to murder." Posted by redbds at 12:45 PM : Sep 22, 2008

Well if it isn''t murder, then what the hell is it? This was a living, breathing creature.

[redbds]

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?

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!

[redbds]

Well if it isn''''t murder, then what the hell is it? This was a living, breathing creature.

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.

[erasmus81]

"But 2 years in prison?" Posted by denny1233 at 01:06 PM : Sep 22, 2008

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!

[gunfighter51]

I would throw the bum in with a large cat, a leopard or a lion and see how well he fares with his self defense alibi. One swipe would remove his head.

[erasmus81]

"You can only murder a human being. Killing an animal is not murder." Posted by redbds at 02:11 PM : Sep 22, 2008

Like Vicar, you are an idiot.

[thevicar1]

Boy the idiots are out here today. the guy killed a animal. The cat was also de-clawed. so how scared could he be. he should have just left instead of killing the cat ------------------------------------------------------ Posted by love4all2


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

[thevicar1]

Well if it isnt murder, then what the hell is it? This was a living, breathing creature ----------------------------------------- Posted by erasmus81


just like a lobster, huh?

[thevicar1]

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 redbds


Actually, in the final analysis, it was a DEAD cat...other than that, I AGREE with you completely!

[thevicar1]

If there isnt severe consequences for these kinds of idiots, they will just keep on doing it. He killed a living creature! ------------------------------------------------------ Posted by erasmus81


Actually, I would lay you Pete Rose Odds that this guy NEVER goes near a cat again!

[redbds]

Like Vicar, you are an idiot.

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.

[sfden]

Give me a break! The Cat was DECLAWED!!! Cat''s generally don''t attack unless they''re cornered or hit 1st. That guy''s story is pathetic.

[oldpoet-2009]

Well if it isn''''t murder, then what the hell is it? This was a living, breathing creature.

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.

[sfden]

Oh and one more thing, It''s a very short hop from killing animals to killing people. I have 2 cats, and they''re smart, loving, beautiful creatures that bring warmth into my life -
Killing a declawed cat in "self defense?!" He should work for the Bush Administration.

[erasmus81]

"Actually, mine was the legal defination of murder." Posted by redbds at 02:27 PM : Sep 22, 2008

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

[redbds]

And your comparison to BEEF is not even CLOSE to a good comparison. We raise BEEF specifically for the purpose of food. Were it not for that, then those animals wouldn''''t exist to begin with.

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.

[oldpoet-2009]

As to the idiot who posted that killing a cat isn''''t murder.... uh.. HELLO... it is! Posted by CANYOUTELLME at 02:31 PM : Sep 22, 2008

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."

[flubberguts]

It is correct to say that killing a cat is not the same as murdering a human being. That is why he is only up for 2 years as opposed to 25 to life.

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.

[redbds]

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 erasmus81 at 02:37 PM : Sep 22, 2008

You must be on of those vegiterians.

[erasmus81]

Why is it that no matter what the subject, some moron always has to bring politics into it?

[jpdworkin]

As a lifelong cat owner I will say two things: 1)declawed cats (which is in itself very cruel and selfish) know that they have no weapons except their fangs and they all tend to bite and nip. 2) This guy is full of it. He lost control and did something ugly and should pay the full penalty.

[oldpoet-2009]

And your comparison to BEEF is not even CLOSE to a good comparison. We raise BEEF specifically for the purpose of food. Were it not for that, then those animals wouldn''''''''t exist to begin with.

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.

[redbds]

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.

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?

[thevicar1]

Cats generally dont attack unless theyre cornered or hit 1st ------------------------------------------------------ Posted by sfden


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!

[redbds]

"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

Actually the word "inhumanly" infers that murder applies to humans.

[oldpoet-2009]

oy vey... you guys crack me up...

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.

[candy-apple]

Cat''''s generally don''''t attack unless they''''re cornered or hit 1st.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[thevicar1]

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 its not murder ------------------------------------------- Posted by oldpoet

OldPoet, arent you forgetting the scientific rule that states if something is cute, warm, and cuddly you cant kill it?

[mjm117]

One less cat in this world...

[mjm117]

murdered or not, it''s just a cat. Nobody cares except for the lunatic lonely woman and her 25 cats

[mjm117]

As a lifelong cat owner I will say two things: 1)declawed cats (which is in itself very cruel and selfish) know that they have no weapons except their fangs and they all tend to bite and nip. 2) This guy is full of it. He lost control and did something ugly and should pay the full penalty.

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.

[usclimey]

Obviously a cat is an animal, thus this is not murder (perhaps unfortuantely). What is bad about this case is the "torturing" aspect. I realise that cows and pigs etc. are animials and we kill them to be able to eat them. We do so, hopefully, quickly and relatively painlessly (unless your a pig in Iowa). I would hope that anyone torturing a pig or a cow is guilty of something. Thus, my opinion, as a dedicated cat-lover is give this guy a choice; 2 years the $500 fine or 1000 hours community service wearing a notice saying "I killed my girl-friends cat because I was afraid of it."