> If they shot into someone's house or even yard, they would be in jail. That's optimistmic. > If they shot the cat when it was in their yard it was loose and

> If they shot into someone's house or even yard, they would be in jail. That's optimistmic. > If they shot the cat when it was in their yard it was loose and their actions were probably completely legal. For domesticated animals like cats and dogs, this isn't true even on large personal tracts where shooting at nothing in particular is perfectly legal. You can't shoot someone's dog just because it's trespassing. And this certainly isn't generally legal to discharge a firearm at a non-threatening animal in most any suburb or city (OP has "dozens of neighbors"). > They are an invasive species. There are many operations to cull invasive species (including cats) on a much larger scale. Why aren't you mad about those? The comment about the cat is supposed to reflect on the character of the person driving loudly and abusing animals. Just because wildlife management sometimes requires culling doesn't mean that animal cruelty is no big deal.