Too many here think that I am saying it is ok just because I don't think it should be a crime. The two are mutually exclusive.
There are a lot of things people do that are wrong that are not against the law. There are even right things people do that are against the law.
When I say something should or shouldn't be a crime, I am stating whether it is constitutionally an area where the government gets involved.
Do I think it's wrong? Yes. Just like pre-marital sex, homosexuality and a number of other things. Do I think the government should get involved, constitutionally speaking? Yes, if the animal (any animal) was someone elses property. Otherwise, the only tool I feel comfortably using against sinners such as this GROUP of people is shame.
You argue that the government has no place getting involved, unless the cat was someone elses property. OK, just so I understand you clearly. If the cat was "owned" by someone other than this freak, it is a crime, basically destruction of private property, or something to that degree. Otherwise, if the cat was "owned" by this freak, or if the cat was a stray, hence, "unowned", then no crime was committed.
By this same logic, it is OK to torture and kill human beings, since they are not "property" that can be owned by another, at least in this country.