In the early hours of March 31, 2026, an animal-harm incident occurred in Tianhe District, Guangzhou. A Sina News page republishing WoZhua App’s verified Weibo post said Lin used a slingshot from the road toward a first-floor residence, injured an indoor cat, then entered the residence without permission and took the injured cat away. On April 1, the cat’s owner received an administrative penalty decision: three days of administrative detention, with one slingshot and two steel balls confiscated.

A shot fired toward an indoor cat before dawn

According to Sina News’s republication of WoZhua App’s verified Weibo post, around 3 a.m. on March 31, 2026, a case of harm to a pet cat occurred in Tianhe District, Guangzhou. The post said Lin shot from the road toward a first-floor residence and injured an indoor cat kept by the household.

The cat was not an accidental target in a street dispute. It was an indoor companion animal cared for by a family. Firing steel balls into a residence, injuring the cat, then entering the home and taking the injured cat away harmed an animal’s life and safety and crossed boundaries involving residence and property security.

Three days of detention; the slingshot and steel balls were confiscated

The public post said the cat’s owner received an administrative penalty decision on April 1. The decision imposed three days of administrative detention on Lin and confiscated one slingshot and two steel balls.

The image of the decision cited provisions of China’s Public Security Administration Punishments Law. WoZhua’s post also summarized two key actions: shooting the cat with a slingshot, and then transferring the injured cat away.

The case was handled as a public-security administrative penalty. The public explanation also noted that the cat’s assessed value was about 300 yuan, below the criminal threshold for intentional property damage. This again shows the limits of current remedies: animal-harm cases often enter enforcement through property, public security or residential-boundary issues, rather than through direct protection of animals as sentient lives.

Xiao Hua did not return

One public image says farewell to Xiao Hua and states that the cat was injured at home by a man and forcibly taken away, never to return. This site preserves that as a public social-media record; it is not the wording of an official document, but it is consistent with the core facts in the Sina republication.

The cruelty here was not only the slingshot shot, but also the removal of the injured cat from the family’s care. For the owner, the loss was not merely a monetary value; it was the loss of a small animal who should have been safe at home.

Community disputes, personal anger or dislike of animals cannot justify shooting an indoor cat and taking it away. The criticism belongs on the concrete act itself: it treated a vulnerable life as disposable and left the owner with a pain that cannot be restored by a short administrative penalty.

Timeline

Public source

• Sina News republication of WoZhua App verified Weibo record