Paul Zhang is notorious. I wrote about him on August 3. He was going around trapping and ‘euthanizing’ (actually killing often in my view) stray or outside cats in Royal Palm Beach, Florida. He managed to get away with it for years in pretending to be doing a service to the community but he was killing people’s pets sometimes so how did this judge give him a fine? I think he is being sued in the civil courts too in relation to 26 cats.
[I don’t want to repeat my previous post so if this post interests you please click on this link (or the link below) and read about Zhang and come back her and see if you agree that a fine is too light a punishment.]
He lied to people saying he was going to get the cats homed in sanctuaries but all the while euthanising them. Either he wanted to kill cats and was dressing it up to look like he was doing something humane or he genuinely believed he was doing some good. He was not doing good and he was breaking the law.
Judge Paul Damico said in his summing up:
“You can’t do that because you’re not above the law. The animals were their property, and they had a right to be told the truth, what was going to happen with their property, albeit they are living animals. That’s where you made the mistake.”
Zhang can no longer trap cats under a court order. But did Zhang make a mistake as the judge states or did he do it all in full knowledge that he was killing cats illegally and by deceit? In other words he had the intent to kill and there was no mistake. It looks like it to me. I think he pulled the wool over the judge’s eyes.
Vigilante stray cat ‘euthanizer’ killed 76 cats and lied about connections to shelters
