SPCA 'begged' Sampson not to kill cat

2012-05-11 11:54
Cape Town - Allan Perrins, CEO of the Cape of Good Hope SPCA, has expressed shock at the news of comedian Mark Sampson beheading a cat mauled by his dogs in his yard.

Perrins told Channel24 that Sampson allegedly called the Cape Animal Medical Centre (CAMC) and made his intentions to remove the head of the cat with a spade known.

According to Perrins, the veterinary nurse at the CAMC "begged with him not to put the cat down, especially in the method that he intended to put the cat down".

"The veterinary nurse then phoned the SPCA's after-hours controller, the controller then contacted Mark (Sampson) and also discouraged him from putting the cat down, and offered to dispatch one of our emergency response vehicles," said Perrins.

In a previous report, Sampson said an operator at the SPCA unofficially advised him to put the cat down so it would not suffer.

"That is an out and out lie," said Perrins.

Perrins told Channel24 that based on the reports he has read, he believes Mark Sampson contravened the animal protection act.

'His spiritual side is dead'

Jeannot Nelson, the owner of the 18-month-old cat named Indica, told Channel24 she's relieved the incident is out in the open.

The incident took place on 25 October 2011.

"I feel a sense of gladness actually, that people know.

"He’s got a side to him which I don't think realises the enormity of (this). That side of him is dead. His spiritual side is probably lacking," said Nelson.

Nelson said she did not get to see her cat before Sampson buried the animal.

"We've got a neighbourhood watch and I put out to all my neighbours, 'please help me find my kitty' on a poster, and then one of my neighbours said to me 'You know Mark Sampson's dogs got hold of a cat last week, why don't you ask him', so I went over and he actually told me he had done it.

"He didn't know it was my cat," said Nelson.

The owner said although Sampson has apologised and given sympathy, "he hasn't acknowledged that what he did was incorrect".

Nelson has collected statements from various parties which she will present when opening a docket against Sampson.

Numerous attempts by Channel24 to contact Mark Sampson were unanswered.

Comments

  • Piet - 2012-05-11 12:31

    Damn but people slit the throats of sheep, What he did is he saved the poor cat from suffering! Should he have let the mauled cat die by its own accord after hours of suffering?

      lydonmcg - 2012-05-11 12:37

      No, he should have taken it to a vet or called out an emergency response vehicle to do it for him. Not chop the thing's head off with a spade!

      Andre - 2012-05-11 12:41

      And prolong the pain from the dog attack?

      leoa.martins - 2012-05-11 12:44

      @lydonmcg....you cant get hold of anyone by dialing 10111 .... have you ever tried to contact a vet or SPCA after hours? I have.....a total waste of time.....sadly, as I am an animal lover. We don't know the full story here so best not pass judgement.

      celeste.rsa - 2012-05-11 13:14

      @rute, try reading again..... "The veterinary nurse then phoned the SPCA's after-hours controller, the controller then contacted Mark (Sampson) and also discouraged him from putting the cat down, and offered to dispatch one of our emergency response vehicles," said Perrins. "

      janet.mcdonaldbelstead - 2012-05-11 14:38

      I've had a few cats mauled by dogs in my years - only two died but that was because I was not at home at the time - the others' were taken to vets, treated and lived. On one hand I see Sampsons' point that he did not want the animal to suffer further, but to follow the route that he did was also not right - there were other options. As a pet owner, I would be horrified to learn that my beloved animal was "destroyed" in this manner.

      Ebon - 2012-05-11 15:12

      So Janet, you would be willing to allow your pet to suffer in agony for an hour so that its corpse can be in one piece (well more or less)? Because once you strip all the emotional baggage from this argument, (and assuming that the cat would not have survived even with vetinary assistance) that is what this essentially boils down to.

      janet.mcdonaldbelstead - 2012-05-11 19:57

      In reply to Ebon - as a pet owner, that is a difficult choice. It has more to do with the "thought of it" than anything else. Yes, you want the animal to be at peace, but you also don't want to chop off it's head to end it's suffering! There are so many sides to this matter but at the end of the day, the cat is no longer suffering.

      olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 11:09

      @lydonmcg - your comment is SO funny! Oh wait - you're being serious! Still I'm laughing at your ridiculous comment!

  • chris.dickson.773 - 2012-05-11 12:42

    CREEPY!!!!

  • Chantel - 2012-05-11 12:43

    Heard him on Cape Talk this morning....guilty..was trying to convince people how he lives in a community who loves animals and and this means he loves them to. Compared this incident to poverty in SA...crazy interview.

      Ebon - 2012-05-11 15:16

      I think it takes a lot more love to man up, take ownership of the situation, and do what is necessary (no matter how grim) than to sit on your posterior for an hour and wait for someone else to come do it for you.

      olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 11:11

      I think you have missed ALL the points here. In fact you have failed yourself to make a valid point here at all.

  • srrandall - 2012-05-11 12:44

    it's not sick. if anything it is humane. If the animal is suffering, innards lying out, crying in pain...and then you still have to wait for SPCA "rapid" emergency response to rock up...it is the quickest way he could have done it. He is not a sicko at least he had the balls to do it and not whimper round like a faerie while the thing suffered waiting for SPCA to get there...

      James - 2012-05-11 12:51

      100% agreed!

      Rick - 2012-05-11 13:02

      Agree. No animal should suffer because of political correctness.

      Pagel - 2012-05-11 13:31

      Agree it was the humane thing to do - when more than one dog has mauled a cat it was probably in pretty bad state and suffering profusely. Any "rapid" response - and afterwards it is easy to claim it would have been rapid - would have taken 15min to 30min minimum. It just sounds cruel - the cat didn't know the difference, but at least it's suffering was not more than absolutely necessary. Of course I do not know the exact circumstances, but this is my best guess. It is a low % of people that will hurt an animal just for sake of hurting it - unfortunately even a low % can still mean quite a few incidents.

      Ebon - 2012-05-11 15:26

      @Pagel: I would tend to think, based on what was reported, that Sampson genuinely tried to do what he thought best in the situation. Why else would he phone the SPCA? How else would his neighbours even know about it? If he was a genuinely cruel person, he would have simply done the deed and told no one. The fact that he phoned the SPCA indicates that he was trying to figure out what was best for the cat. I suspect that by the end of the conversation he had concluded that: 1) the cat could not be saved 2) even if the SPCA response vehicle did arrive, they would simply euthanize it 3) the cat would simply suffer longer as a result Of course the SPCA's official line to the public would be that they would never condone someone performing a mercy killing. But I reckon that most vets who genuinely care for animals would far rather it died quickly than after an hour or two of suffering.

      Pagel - 2012-05-11 17:58

      @Ebon: I agree

  • nikita.clayton1 - 2012-05-11 12:46

    There was always the possibility the cat could have survived if the emergency services had come to collect it, and why phone the SPCA and tell them what you're going to do? Almost as though he was proud of what he was about to do.

      srrandall - 2012-05-11 12:52

      I doubt he did it to boast more to the point that for this exact outcome he explained himself...and come on i'm sure he has a bit more savvy than that to see if the thing was going to live or die let's face it if your dog is chilling there chewing on the cat's intestines...the cat is probably going to die. and would you rather he did it with an axe? probably miss on the first go...

      olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 11:30

      Another tard comment!

  • James - 2012-05-11 12:49

    He put it out of its misery, beheading it served its function. God you people are fickle

      Jill - 2012-05-11 12:56

      The SPCA would have given the kitty an injection and it would have been over in about 45 secs (I know because I had to put my kitty down due to illness and that is how long it took). B T W.... Remind us not to give you or Mr Sampson morphine injections to ease your suffering and pain when you are in agony...

      srrandall - 2012-05-11 13:10

      @Jill a proper beheading for a human, lets you live for about another 8seconds...never tested it with a cat...but i'm pretty sure i'm not too good with the math you can help me out here...10seconds with a spade versus 45seconds+2hours waiting for an injection from SPCA when they finally arrive

      James - 2012-05-11 13:14

      @ Jill. You have no idea what state the cat was in, Sampson did. Cutting a cats head of with a spade would take less than 45secs - it would be instant. You are judging the man, without sufficient information (which only he would have had) Ultimately, whatever brings an end to the animals pain quickly - should be the preferred method

      Jill - 2012-05-11 13:20

      No, SRAndall you do not wait 2 hours to put an animal down at the vet... if you have to wait that long at your Vet to treat your animals then perhaps you should find another Vet or better still not own animals. Oh yea, how do you know it takes 10 sec - have you also beheaded an animal?

      James - 2012-05-11 13:35

      There are several methods of putting an animal down. It looks like you are assuming there is only one and further more assuming it is the only humane one. And lol, cutting an animals head off kills instantly, if the brain is not connected body; pain receptors will not be able to send signals to the head. And therefore the animal will NOT experience any pain. You just assume taking an animal to the vet is the better alternative, because it is a less gruesome reality to accept.

      Pagel - 2012-05-11 13:35

      Agree it was the humane thing to do - when more than one dog has mauled a cat it was probably in pretty bad state and suffering profusely. Any "rapid" response - and afterwards it is easy to claim it would have been rapid - would have taken 15min to 30min minimum. It just sounds cruel - the cat didn't know the difference, but at least it's suffering was not more than absolutely necessary. Of course I do not know the exact circumstances, but this is my best guess. It is a low % of people that will hurt an animal just for sake of hurting it - unfortunately even a low % can still mean quite a few incidents.

      Jill - 2012-05-11 13:49

      Tell me James, what are the other more humane methods of putting an animal down besides injections that you are referring to. I have read all the comments regarding the agreement with this action, but how you or anyone else) can truly believe without any hesitation that chopping off an animal's head is humane is incredible!!

      srrandall - 2012-05-11 13:51

      Actually no Jill I just know and am in the health sciences... so yes I am more educated on this subject than you are...and if you read correctly the cat wasn't at the vet and he probably wouldn't have been able to take it to the vet depending on its condition after a dog attack...

      James - 2012-05-11 14:04

      I will say again, whatever action ends the animals suffering the quickest; would be the most sensible. The fact that you are taking issue with the gory reality of decapitation rather than the animals need for pain relief shows me that you care more for your own emotional well-being that the animals pain.

      Chloe - 2012-05-14 13:22

      the vet live 3 minutes up the road, the cat had no blood on its body, no guts hanging out, he just thought it looked sore. who the hell does he think he is??

  • Rick - 2012-05-11 12:55

    Why should he have prolonged the animal's suffering? What he did was not nice but it was the most humane way to end the cat's misery. If he had waited for a vet that animal would have to suffer the excrutiating pain and agony for an hour or longer and what for? To make the squeamish politically correct droves happy?

      sharon.truebodyvice - 2012-05-11 13:21

      Why does he not kill his dog then and put it out of it`s misery, I would not like to live with a man like him

      Rick - 2012-05-11 15:05

      The dog was not in any misery I know of. The cat came into his garden which is where the dogs got hold of it. It is unfortunate but it is nobodies fault.

  • paul.myers.984 - 2012-05-11 13:04

    You are not funny! Do you think you are being funny? No one thinks so!

  • celeste.rsa - 2012-05-11 13:17

    Probably didn't want to be faced with the vet's bills for the injuries caused by his dogs, so decided to take the easy way out - sicko!

      jody.beggs - 2012-05-11 17:12

      So obviously you would wait and let the animal suffer! Is that humane ? By the way are you a vegetarian that you are so against killing of animals ? Damn the man.

      haworths - 2012-05-14 16:52

      Actually Celeste. The cat came onto his property so he was not liable for any of the vets bills.

  • Arthur - 2012-05-11 13:35

    Dude is probably a TIK Kop.

      jody.beggs - 2012-05-11 17:12

      Your a tik chop , you'd probably cook and eat the cat... Damn the man.

  • jeffrey.jones.357 - 2012-05-11 13:35

    I've never heard of Mark Sampson. What's his claim to fame?

      Jill - 2012-05-11 13:44

      Agree with you Jeffrey - I also had never head of him (nor had the 23 staff members at my office - some of whom are originally from Cape Town!!)

      ant.abomb - 2012-05-11 14:06

      he killed a cat with a spade...and the rest is history...from mundane to insane in the blink of a blood stained eye.

      Mark.Sampson.Comedian.SA - 2012-05-11 22:21

      My thoughts exactly, I am just a father, a husband and someone who did some comedy shows. I'm certainly not a celebrity. This is out of all proportion because the media see me as a "comedian". I am also a huge cat love and made a tough decision that I thought was best for the animal, my actions were perhaps wrong and certainly not in MY best interests. But I firmly believe they were in the best interests of the poor suffering creature at the time. Very hard to do and very traumatic, I cried for a long, long time.

      Chloe - 2012-05-14 13:40

      you made decision you thought best, but you had no right! you have a serious god complex man, if you think you get to choose who lives and dies. It was never your decision to make.

  • Louie - 2012-05-11 13:41

    as much as i love cats,i must say that they live charmed lives,being fussed over by doting owners,while creating havoc in the neighbourhood.cats regularly invade my property,killng birds,rampaging on my roof at 2.15 in the morning and leaving their vile smelling calling cards.my dog sleeps inside,but whenever i let her out,she goes tearing after these intruders.fortunately she has not yet caught one.i am saddled with having to repair my wendy house roof after a cat jumped through it.i know because when i opened the door,the big,fat,white cat ran out.mark sampson,you have all my sympathy.

  • Ben - 2012-05-11 13:42

    Mercy killing. enough said.

  • ailsa.j.loudon - 2012-05-11 13:47

    Disgusting!

  • markvonbentheim - 2012-05-11 13:57

    Am glad the owner is going to press charges against Sampson, with the aid of the SPCA, over this incident. Clearly a number of you are not cat lovers, let alone cat owners. To simply apologize and say I didn't know it was your cat, is pathetic and shows exactly that the idjot doesn't care about anyone but himself. Personally I hope they fine him to the brink of insolvency; as well as destroy the dog; cause the dog will do it again to another cat that get's cornered in the chop's garden. Any animal lover would have tried to save the cat first and foremost; regardless of what condition the cat was in. To make such a call and then to take a spade to the animal is inexcusable and unforgivable. To all you who have commented on this story and see no problem in it and with what he did; imagine if it was your cat (if you actually have a cat you'd understand; and if you don't then simply shut up) ... hell even your dog; and think about how you would react if someone did this to your pet ... let alone having the thought to call someone who offers assistance and then to simply behead the animal ... and at 18-months it is still a kitten. I sincerely hope I never have to meet / bump into Sampson and I hope that everyone from now on boycotts any show this animal hater does; let alone those who hire him.

      srrandall - 2012-05-11 14:13

      You don't have to be a cat owner to feel the owner's anguish...however, you are wrong in saying he is an animal hater. If anything he cared enough to do that. And does everyone forget that every owner is responsible for their own pets? Yes cats are difficult to keep couped up...but seriously take some responsibility for the initial incident that the cat was in his yard...when the dog attacked it...via animal instinct protecting his own territory...and depending on the condition of the cat after this initial incident would depend on the action to take...If the cat was past saving i then agree with his judgement call...

      Mitch - 2012-05-11 14:16

      Well put Mark. Boycott all Mark Sampson shows. Let the prick feel it where it hurts - maybe then he will laugh his head off! Sampson = Wanker!

      Ebon - 2012-05-11 14:58

      I am a cat owner and I love my cats. If it was my cat in that situation, I would want to try and save it. Failing that I would want it to die in a fashion that was painless, quick and in the manner least personally disturbing to me. But I am not so naive as to believe that this is borne of love for the animal. Those desires are totally selfish. I don't want to be traumatised by witnessing (or thinking about) my cat being decapitated. That, Mark, is not genuine "animal love". That is selfish love. Real love means facing up to the grim reality and dealing with it in which ever way is actually best for the animal, regardless of how much it personally pains you. Rationally, the best thing for the animal is to end its suffering as quickly as possible. Waiting for a vet to come and do the deed "humanely" is not about the cat. It's about the human being who cannot deal with the emotional trauma of witnessing their pet dying in a violent manner. Assuming that mr Sampson is honest in his account about what happened, then I salute him for manning up and taking responsibility in the situation and doing the right thing for the animal. (Of course if he just decided to decapitate the cat for the fun of it, that is pretty grim, but that scenario does not fit the facts we have been presented with) On a final note, I hope I never have to face a similar situation myself, because I am not sure I could do what was in the animal's best interest.

      Jill - 2012-05-11 15:03

      Thank you Mark!!!!! I - and the many others who have come out against this barbaric act - applaud you. Bless you.

      mike.jankelowitz - 2012-05-11 23:34

      Hey Mark, why the venom? As it happens, I am a cat lover and have a couple of them. If you were not there yourself, how can you judge him so harshly? I really hope that you never find yourself in a similar situation in life that people judge you so quickly before they have walked in your shoes. You have taken the media as gospel and jumped onto the bandwagon. Remember, Karma is a bitch. Give the guy a break. If you saw an animal in distress, dying a slow agonising death after being ripped apart, perhaps you may not take a call on it and let the poor animal suffer. At least he did make a call, and ended the porr kittens misery. He is not a cruel or hearless person, if you knew him. However you have already judged him , been the jury and passed sentence. Rather cruel of you, methinks!

      olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 10:25

      Mark, you are a moron! In fact your posted comment is more tragic than the circumstances that we all are commenting on.

      Chloe - 2012-05-14 13:44

      That is what it simply comes down to. Could you bear it if someone did that to your animal? And should HE really have made the call (he is not a vet,or even close to)? has anyone asked him how badly the cat was really hurt? Are we all meant to sit back and say its ok for citizens to take the lives of other peoples animals into their own hands? What makes him so special that he can play God/Death?

      haworths - 2012-05-14 16:58

      Mark, if a strange cat came onto my property my dogs would also attack it. If you have a cat and want to keep it safe then keep it locked in your own property. If it is on some-one else's property and it gets attacked it is on the cat's owners fault and responsibility. And before you tell my that I need to shut up because I do not have a cat, I have plenty, and I adore them, and I have had to have one put down due to injuries she got while out wondering.

  • jayne.leroux - 2012-05-11 14:12

    SPCA = Complete waste of time. I don't believe any of the nonsense they're trying to sell here. They've proven themselves to be lazy, incompetant and not nearly as interested in the well being of animals as they claim to be. They're the last people I'd phone. He put the cat out of it's misery. You don't see people getting upset over snakes being beheaded for just being snakes.

      Martin - 2012-05-11 14:29

      exactly, i like how you put that Jayne, i have a boa, and that boy knows the difference between me and other people, if you are holding him, he will try get to me every single time. They are just as loving as any other creature.

      Ark - 2012-05-11 14:49

      Jayne for President. We are so tired of two faced "Animal Actvists" that bitch and moan about about other people doing things to animals but have absolutely no problem killing snakes whether they are venomous or not. By all means we must do whats best for the welfare of the animal but do not attribute human emotions to animals. I believe this guy did what was best for the welfare of the cat in question. Dog owners are required to keep their dogs contained... Cat owners do the same please.

      Chloe - 2012-05-14 13:49

      Martin, how would you like it if someone did the same to your snake?

  • victoria.bell.39 - 2012-05-11 14:24

    Would love to have a go at him with a spade. See if he's funny then

  • Martin - 2012-05-11 14:27

    ITS JUST ABOUT MONEY, SPCA VETS WANT MONEY. mr sampson you did the honourable thing sir. The poor cat was in bad shape, suffering and you put it down, good on you mate...it would have died hours later more than likely, breathing through punctured lungs, possible broken everything, screw the hippies, they know not what they do...

  • Deana - 2012-05-11 14:40

    SURELY Mark Sampson has a car! Why the f@ck didn't he take the suffering cat, wrap it in a towel and drive to the nearest Vet?? Because he probably don't like cats and thought taking the cat to a vet will cost 1. Money 2. Waste his time. 3. Cat's not worthy of humane euthanasia. Beheading a animal with a spade is just plain cruel and screwed up!!!

      Rick - 2012-05-11 15:01

      That would have prolonged its suffering. Driving around trying to find an open vet after hours would have taken time. The cat was not going to survive. It would have suffered in the car. Beheading an animal isn't pretty but it is quick and painless.

      Jill - 2012-05-11 15:07

      Thank you Deana. Glad someone else feels like me and Mark Von Bentheim as well as the others who have condemned this situation.

      Rick - 2012-05-11 15:11

      The problem with people like Deana is that they would have done what would have made them feel better, not what would have minimised the animal's suffering.\r\n\r\nI have two cats and if this were ever to happen to them I'd rest easier knowing that they had to suffer no more than neccesary.

      haworths - 2012-05-14 17:07

      Deana, it would not have cost him any money at all. Not his animal = not his bill unless his dogs attacked the cat on the cat owner's property. And if you take an animal into an after hours emergency vet and it is not yours they do not treat it, they simply put it is a cage and call the SPCA who often take hours to come and collect it. Or they refuse to take it (I have had this problem with a dog that I picked up after some-one else hit it) and you drive around trying to find a vet, any vet, who will look at the animal. And, have you ever tried to pick up an animal that has been mauled by dogs? I mean, all of it, at the same time?

  • Christopher Zoony De Croes - 2012-05-11 15:21

    GIVE THAT MAN A BELLS ! mercy killing, pity his dogs didn't just kill the cat then wouldn't be such a fuss now. he just did what his dogs didn't finish,, cat was past it & suffering

  • Jill - 2012-05-11 15:28

    So now srrandall is stooping to personalise my comments by suggesting he is better educated than I because he is in "health sciences". No matter who you are or what your level of education is, your moral compass is always there to guide you... and my moral compass says this act was cruel and unnecessary... End of discussion.

      Ebon - 2012-05-11 16:14

      Your very controversial statement is actually the start of a discussion. Quite frankly, your argument is entirely emotionally charged and lacks any evidence of rational thought. Your moral compass as you put it, tells you to avoid acts that are cruel and unnecessary, but you need to substantiate how you came to the conclusions that this act was either cruel or unnecessary. Logic tells me the following: 1) Allowing an animal to suffer is cruel. 2) Killing an animal deprives it of life and could on that basis be regarded as cruel. 3) The cruelty of the act of killing an animal is amplified if the animal is made to suffer during the act. 4) If one assumes that the animal is in the process of dying (ie its death is imminent) then the qualifier for the act of killing that animal being cruel on the basis of depriving it of life (#2) becomes null and void. 5) Taken out of context, whichever choice mr Sampson took could be regarded as being cruel, either allowing the cat to suffer for a protacted period of time before it died, or euthenizing it immediately. 6) However, given that mr Sampson's choices were limited to 1 of these 2 options, logic dictates that the objective definition of cruelty would be to follow the more cruel alternative. 7) Therefore, the ojective definition of "cruel" in this context would be whichever course of actions results in greater suffering. 8) Therefore giving the animal a quick death is the opposite of cruel (ie merciful)

      Ebon - 2012-05-11 16:16

      9) This act was in fact, therefore, necessary in order to avoid cruelty.

      srrandall - 2012-05-11 16:22

      mercy killing to avoid one's suffering lands pretty high on that moral compass you speak of, it is not easy to kill a living thing...and no i was just enlightening you that i do indeed know what i am speaking about, when you got personal accused me of killing animals in my spare time, and NO in fact i have studied to improve health and preserve life. In this particular instance you just have to step back and see that and what i am saying is IF the cat was too far gone he did take the best action...and it was quick,and trust me,painless compared to what the dog had done to it...

      jody.beggs - 2012-05-11 17:17

      @srrandall you must be a vegetarian too! Don't kill the kittie but don't save the cow... Hypocrite much...

      srrandall - 2012-05-11 17:44

      @jody ...oh no sorry to be misleading...i am a very happy omnivore...but i know for myself killing a living thing in the circumstances Sampson was in is a difficult decision i hope i never have to make...and no i myself wouldn't be able to kill a cow but i am glad there are people that do that for me...i know it's hypocritical but personally not something i could do...ok vegetarians you can have at me now...bring it...

      olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 11:46

      Why was it cruel Jill? Seems like you need some enlightenment!

  • Richard - 2012-05-11 15:57

    we don't know the cats injuries. How can an asswipe like that decide it must die. A vet could stitch it up and its fine. No wonder no-one laughs at his comedy shows.

      Deana - 2012-05-11 18:23

      Thank you, Richard!

      olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 11:49

      Hey "Dick" do you not think (of course you don't!) that Mark Sampson would have taken the cat to a vet if it was the best option i.e. that cat would have lived? Thinks man! FFS!

  • ngonimclean - 2012-05-11 16:13

    Only in the south of africa can a cat's killing grab headlines

      Deana - 2012-05-11 16:41

      The state of a nation is determined by the way they treat their animals. Try reading international newspapers my friend, then you'd be more equipped to make statements.

      jody.beggs - 2012-05-11 17:18

      @Deana that's right , how do we treat , chickens , pigs and cows ? But that's ok, its not a suffering cat! Damn the man.

  • Deana - 2012-05-11 16:23

    Rick \the problem with people like Deana\. How DARE you! You don't know me at all and I will not let any animal suffer just to make myself feel better! If you feel ok with chopping a cat's head of with a spade- good for you! You don't even know the extent of the cat's inquiries- we only have Mark's word for it. I am really glad I'm not one of your cats.

      Ebon - 2012-05-11 16:54

      Exactly. You DON'T know. How therefore can you judge? I am not for chopping a cat's head off, period. But, under certain extreme circumstances, it is a better course of action than the alternative. As quite possibly was the case here. As you yourself say, you won't let an animal suffer just to make yourself feel better. So here is your conundrum: If it could be proven that by chopping the cat's head off, it would reduce its suffering, would you back up your proclamations and do it in spite of the fact that you don't want to? If not then I'm afraid you are a hypocrite, putting your own personal feelings in front of the cat's needs...

      jody.beggs - 2012-05-11 17:20

      At Deana , if your cat brought in a maimed mouse or bird , would you take it to the vet? Double standards ? Damn the man.

  • Deana - 2012-05-11 17:25

    Ebon and Rick- If I was in that situation, with absolutely NO alternative- I would rather shoot the cat. That is instant and not barbaric. If I didn't have a gun, I think I'd rather slit the cat's throat. Call me a hypocrite or what ever you like- it's all the same to me.

      TaniaSandraSteyn - 2012-05-12 03:36

      That is only the case if you know how and where to place the shot. You are playing a movie in your head. The cat was suffering. As Ebon explained so raionally: your are thinking with your emotions, and not your logic. Using a spade to behead is more humane than slitting the throat. It takes about two minutes for a creature to bleed to death. Jolting a severly injured animal in a car for a journey to the vet is cruel. It just makes you feel better - and it's a false response.

      Faan - 2012-05-12 09:50

      "Rather shoot the cat"......alternatively "slit its throat"???!!! Very obviously you have never had to execute a mercy killing. "Slit its throat" would have let the cat bleed to death and thats prolonging the suffering. Therefore that is simply in the interest of your own emotions and not in the interest of the cat. Well done Mark Sampson. From experience I know it was not easy but also from experience I know it was in the best interest of the animal and NOT your own emotions.

      haworths - 2012-05-14 17:13

      Chop off it's head, shoot the cat. The only difference is that while you might have a gun most others do not. And discharging a firearm in a surburban area is extremely dangerous and is not actually guarenteed to put the cat out of it's misery. But, you have just admitted that had the cat been suffering (which I am sure it was) then the correct thing to do was to put it out of it's misery as soon as possible. You just object to the method as YOU feel it is barbaric. I thing shooting the cat would be more callous and barbaric.

  • David - 2012-05-11 17:26

    This is some very bad journalism - pay no regard to this story. I say this as a journalist myself. It's pure sensationalism trying to fan the fires of scandal. Without his side of the story all we have is gossip. From the injuries described in other accounts the cat wouldn't have survived long enough to receive professional care. The story plays up the way he killed it (beheading) rather than attempting to validate why he did it. And I know Mark Sampson (that may make me biased) but I can tell you he is easy to reach and more than willing to talk to the press. How many attempts to reach him constitute 'numerous' attempts? Two unanswered calls five minutes apart?

      Mark.Sampson.Comedian.SA - 2012-05-11 22:07

      They never tried to contact me, it's impossible not to reach me, email, phone all online plus agents, Facebook etc

      olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 10:20

      Very well said David.

  • Rosalind - 2012-05-11 17:47

    Story makes for interesting reading! There is always 3 side to a story, your's mine and the truth!

  • Mark.Sampson.Comedian.SA - 2012-05-11 18:44

    The only other option at the time was driving to Grassy Park with a cat that I am 100% sure would have been dead before I made it over the mountain. I didn't drive to the SPCA because of my own feelings about the unnecessary suffering but after hearing Allan Perrins side from the SPCA I would do things differently in the future. Perhaps the animal may have suffered longer but I admit I was not qualified to make such a decision. I acted as best as I could for the animal at that time. Again I am so sorry about this whole incident but I did what I thought was in the best interests of the animal at the time. It was very hard. Thank you for your understanding.

  • mike.jankelowitz - 2012-05-11 22:07

    How hard it must have been for Mark to have made that call. There was the poor cat, torn apart, bleeding and suffering greatly. He didnt know who's cat it was, at the time, and also knew that by the time he got to the vet, the cat would have suffered a miserable death. So he made a call, tough call. But still, he made it from compassion and Faith. Not from fear or loathing. Now, way after the fact, everyone can speculate about it and add their 2 cents worth. People, it aint gonna bring the cat back and moreover this man and his family are being made into ogres at a witch hunt. He certainly did not go out and find a cat, use a spade and kill it, then try worm his way out. He has honestly stated exactly what happened, feels really cruddy, and wants to put this behind him, and get on with life. What is everyone trying to do here? Take a great South African patriot, yes, he is very patriotic, a fantastic comedian, a motivating speaker, a good family man, and make him into a monster? Remember, anything can be stated through internet by anyone. How do you know the truth? Dont judge others, lest you be judged. My heart goes out to Mark and his family for the pain being brought upon him now. Where is the compassion toward this man? He showed compassion, albeit we hate the fact he had to do this. NOW let him be! Condolences to the cat's owner and family. Mark did not set his dogs upon the cat!Sadly, dogs do this on their own. Its what makes them dogs! Now lets end this, here!!Peace!

  • Michelle - 2012-05-12 08:47

    All he had to do was follow the advice given to him by the organisation he phoned. You should've listened and taken the cat to the vet. It wasn't your pet. You have to give the owner or a medical professional, in this case a vet, that responsibility of making that call.

      Ninjinvee - 2012-05-12 10:20

      It's very easy to judge and to say "he should've done this".

      olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 10:32

      Oh dear Michelle - what advice do you think he was given? And how would the advice been of any help to the situation? What was needed to be done was action - not good intentions.

      Michelle - 2012-05-13 02:07

      What was needed to be done, was the owner's or the vet's rightful choice to make.

      Michelle - 2012-05-13 02:13

      And the advice he was given was NOT to put the cat down if you read the article. It also says they offered to dispatch an emergency vehicle to the place. Clearly constructive advice was given that he chose not to follow.

      Ninjinvee - 2012-05-14 09:42

      Please have a look at your own life. We all need to make changes to our lives (including me) before we even think we have the right to judge others. It's very easy to gossip after an incident and give a thousand DIFFERENT options. But point is, sort out your own character before you judge someone else's. And if you eat meat, then ask yourself the logical question: Why am I killing animals only to eat them? Killing a chicken is NO DIFFERENT from killing a cat.

      neddy.geoghegan - 2012-10-25 14:24

      I agree with you Michelle. Its not exactly rocket science to rush the cat to an emergency veterinary hospital and get it put to sleep. Or to let a professional pick the cat up and do what their job entails them to do either.

  • adritruter - 2012-05-12 09:09

    I hope everyone takes note that unless you are a vet, euthanasia (by any means) on an animal is illegal and charges can be laid against you in terms of the Animal Protection act.\r\n\r\nWhy did the cat's owner not act immediately with laying charges? Why did she contact the media and not the authorities and 6 months after the incident? If this article is not aimed at sensationalism it would've been printed in the paper and not online in the entertainment section

      olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 10:28

      - I agree with your view but I would like to add that even if something is illegal it doesn't mean it is wrong.

  • olivercorbettwood - 2012-05-12 10:10

    I don't understand what Mark has done wrong here! What is the difference in euthanasia between this method or a Vet's - all that is being done is stopping any further suffering. In fact it would have been cruel to have done nothing.

      neddy.geoghegan - 2012-10-25 14:13

      I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say the difference is probably a spade and a needle??

  • Ninjinvee - 2012-05-12 10:15

    Stop judging the guy. What about all you who eat meat? All omnivores are daily supporting the murder of animals. If there was a law stating that the killing of any animal is illegal, 80% of the world's population would be locked up. Judge yourself harshly BEFORE you judge others. What makes you think your actions are so righteous and in line with good religion/spirituality? It's easy to say "He should have done this and that." When you're in the situation, then speak. Until then, don't judge and be silent.

      neddy.geoghegan - 2012-10-25 09:31

      Yes because any sane person would automatically think to grab a shovel and behead an animal. . . Why not take it to be euthanized?

  • Leanne - 2012-05-14 15:26

    haha i have a feeling that mark sampson himself has been clicking likes and dislikes on the comments below. funny how there are so many likes of people's comments supporting his horrific act and so many dislikes towards the comments that support humanity towards animals and living creatures. i can assure you that statistically there are many more people whom are pro-life and preservation of animals (ie. doing whatever is possible to save a living thing)rather than those who endorse persecution. especially the fact that he himself commented on this feed below. makes you wonder ey?

  • Leanne - 2012-05-14 15:40

    haha it seems as if mark sampson himself has been liking and disliking peoples comments below. especially the fact that he himself has made a statement on this post. doesnt it seem strange that there are more likes towards peoples comments supporting his horrific act and dislikes towards the comments supporting animal rights?! i can assure you that statistically there are more people who are pro-life and protection of animals (ie. doing whatever is possible to keep an animal alive) over those whom support persecution of animals. makes you wonder ey?

  • Mark.Sampson.Comedian.SA - 2012-05-14 17:27

    Mark Sampson Press Release 13th May Mark Sampson would like to make the following clear: 1) He did NOT behead a cat. 2) He is not a spade-wielding maniac who stalks the streets of Noordhoek looking for kittens to slaughter. 3) His dogs killed the cat, he just put it out of its misery. 4) He does not consider himself above the law or the SPCA, but the cat was obviously way beyond help and would not have survived the journey. 5) The cat was in agony and his wife begged him to do something to release her from her pain. 6) He did what he thought was right, and what was in the animal’s best interests – not necessarily his own. 7) The owner agreed with him at the time and he has an email from her to back this up (see below). 8) The owner’s son made several violently abusive calls to his family and threatened to poison Mark’s dogs. 9) This all happened over 6 months ago. Why is the owner only complaining now? And why via the media? 10) If he was faced with a similar situation, Mark would do the same again. Mark is saddened that the powerful media attention on this could have been better focused elsewhere, and would like to thank his Africa Clockwise sponsors for standing by him.

  • Mark.Sampson.Comedian.SA - 2012-05-14 17:31

    Mark Sampson Press Release 13th May Mark Sampson would like to make the following clear: 1) He did NOT behead a cat. 2) He is not a spade-wielding maniac who stalks the streets of Noordhoek looking for kittens to slaughter. 3) His dogs killed the cat, he just put it out of its misery. 4) He does not consider himself above the law or the SPCA, but the cat was obviously way beyond help and would not have survived the journey. 5) The cat was in agony and his wife begged him to do something to release her from her pain. 6) He did what he thought was right, and what was in the animal’s best interests – not necessarily his own. 7) The owner agreed with him at the time and he has an email from her to back this up (see below). 8) The owner’s son made several violently abusive calls to his family and threatened to poison Mark’s dogs. 9) This all happened over 6 months ago. Why is the owner only complaining now? And why via the media? 10) If he was faced with a similar situation, Mark would do the same again. Mark is saddened that the powerful media attention on this could have been better focused elsewhere, and would like to thank his Africa Clockwise sponsors for standing by him.

  • Ninjinvee - 2012-05-14 21:02

    Stop eating meat, THEN talk. Omnivores murder animals everyday, directly and indirectly! What makes killing a cat different from killing a chicken or cow? save the cat but kill the chicken? Really?? Is that the kind of world we live in?? Get real, HYPOCRITES!

  • Ninjinvee - 2012-05-14 21:08

    One day, we will all be judged so harshly. I think only then will we understand what it's like to know 1 side of the story, just like gossipers. I don't support casual killing of animals, but I would like to add that we have no liberty to judge the next human being? How can we possibly go to a holy place, "supposedly pray to God" and still have the balls to judge and still think our judgement holds value? Become better human beings before you judge another!

  • Jango - 2012-05-15 16:55

    Look at the toad. Nothing more needs to be said.

  • charmaine.viljoen1 - 2012-05-23 18:59

    I hope he burns in Hell!!!

  • neddy.geoghegan - 2012-10-25 07:58

    Its not exactly a difficult task for any person in that situation to pick up the cat carefully in a towel or blanket and rush it into the nearest vets hospital or clinic. Even if the cat has no chance of survival, surely after your dogs have mauled it, the least you can do is take it to be humanely euthanized? Who even thinks of just beheadding an animal with a spade? That's so horrible!

  • pages:
  • 1