Cat Killer Sentenced to Ten Days

George Seymour, the owner of the Import Car Store who shot and killed his neighbor’s cat earlier this year, has been sentenced to ten days in jail, fifty days suspended, The Hook reports. Though Seymour could have received a harsher punishment had he been charged with a felony, Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Camblos failed to file those charges for reasons he won’t explain. Camblos got Seymour’s wife to admit, on the stand, that he had previously shot and killed their family dog. What a bastard.

12 Responses to “Cat Killer Sentenced to Ten Days”


  • “…I impulsively shot my neighbor’s cat, and I regret that…” — Yes, I’m sure he does. I seriously doubt, however, that he regrets it for the right reason. I hope that 10 days of striped daylight will provide some clarity for the man. May he see black cats in his dreams.

  • now if seymore had conspired to blow up his neighbor’s cat with a smokebomb, i’m sure camblos would have tried to put him away for life.

  • OK he did a bad thing. On the other hand cats, as dogs, in my opinion, should not be allowed to roam unattended.

    If a cat trespasses upon my property and kills, usuallyfor sport, birds, which I regard as companions, domesticated or not, then I have little recourse. Not quite fair.

    I have, in general, no bias against dogs or cats, but both species should be controlled.

  • Proctologistview,

    There’s been no reason to think that the cat was killing birds on Seymour’s property and even less reason to think that Seymour was in the slightest bit concerned for the welfare of wildlife (although I agree with you generally about the problem with domestic cats and birds). Seymour killed the cat because he felt like it and had no regard for other people’s property or for the life of an animal. Sometimes killing animals is necessary (I am a hunter myself) but there was no good reason for what this guy did.

    You certainly do have recourse in that situation. Should someone’s cat tresspass on your land and kill birds then you could first talk to the animal’s owner and then if that fails call animal control.

  • Although I’m disappointed that Jim Camblos did not file felony charges, but he did do a great job at the trial. He really took personal interest in this case and worked hard at it. At the end of the trial, it was clear to me that this man George Seymour was guilty as sin, and only regretted it because of the trouble it caused him. The last bit with “taking the dog out back and shooting it because it bumped into his then pregnant wife” was just icing on the “terrible human being” cake.

    Proctologistview: Are you suggesting companion birds are allowed outside, but companion cats should not be? sounds like bias in my opinion.

  • The whole thing is even more alarming upon reading the Progress article. Seymour admitted that he’d never actually seen the cat on his car. That’s because the cat was “too lazy and too fat” to jump up on a car.

    Good for Susann Kogut for opposing having this guy volunteer at the SPCA, as his attorney suggested. I wouldn’t trust him around the animals. Though I wouldn’t trust the volunteers around him, either. One way or another, it would end in tears.

  • Jack says: “There’s been no reason to think that the cat was killing birds on Seymour’s property and even less reason to think that Seymour was in the slightest bit concerned for the welfare of wildlife (although I agree with you generally about the problem with domestic cats and birds). ”

    No, Jack, I don`t think that. I was writing in generalities. I do believe to protect cats and allow the birds the ranking of “Devil take the hindmost” is a lopsided affair. I have observed more than one cat owner proudly receive the “songbird kill” from an even prouder cat. To protect a predator to the detriment of prey is an unnatural imbalance.

    Jack added;” someone’s cat tresspass on your land and kill birds then you could first talk to the animal’s owner and then if that fails call animal control. ”

    Perhaps. If that type situation should, in the future, involve you and yours, I wish you tons of luck. I think you will need it, certainly as regards animal control.

  • MrMoJoJoJo said: “Are you suggesting companion birds are allowed outside, but companion cats should not be? sounds like bias in my opinion. ”

    When I used the term “companion birds” I was alluding to song birds which in my view are as much a companion (although not caged) as a caged bird. My response to Jack better conveys my position. I tend to fairness not bias.

  • Waldo wrote:

    Camblos got Seymour’s wife to admit, on the stand, that he had previously shot and killed their family dog. What a bastard.

    Hmm. And which one would be “the Bastard”? Camblos for heartlessly prying that detail out of the wife? Or Seymor for shooting the family dog?

    :)

  • Ha! No, Camblos’ showboating was a bit silly, in that it had nothing to do with the matter at hand, but he did effectively demonstrate that Seymour is a horrible human being.

  • What really gets me is this quote in the Hook from the defense attorney Dick after the trial: “I’m a little disappointed from the point of view that maybe the old times of people protecting their property are gone,” he said. “You just can’t go around doing things that our grandfathers could do. This is a new time, and you’ve got big pet lovers.”

    I can’t even begin to express the stupidity inherent in this statement. Ok, well I’ll try: “I’m a little disappointed from the point of view that maybe the old times of solving problems by mindlessly shooting them, without considering other alternatives or the consequences of your actions, even if you are not in any danger… well, those good ol’ days are gone.” –Me, not too shabby a job expressing the sentiment.

    Someone should tell GW.

  • “I wouldn’t trust him around the animals. Though I wouldn’t trust the volunteers around him, either. One way or another, it would end in tears.”

    I have a couple dogs I could direct him to… ;)

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog