New developments in the stray dog case: The dog owner apologized, the father decided not to agree to reconcile

Regarding the case of the dog owner letting loose, "affecting" the father to protect the child, in the face of the risk of being severely punished, the dog owner sought out the father in the incident to apologize, however, Mr. Dung did not agree to meet the father. face and determined to sue to the end.

Mr. Dung was diagnosed with bruises and scratches on his left cheekbone; tearing left eyelid right cheek 5 stitches; fragment of the left lower incisor. Information from Dan Tri, on February 10, Mr. Nguyen Hoang Dung (34 years old, who was affected by dog owners when chasing dogs to protect children) said that Mr. Dao The Vinh (28 years old, dog owner) lives in the same apartment. reached out to him and his family to apologize.

However, until now, he will still go to the end of the case, determined not to meet. In terms of health, so far he has gradually recovered and has returned to work. Mr. Dung said that he had undergone an injury assessment since February 6 and will have the results in about 10 days. The family will then work with an attorney to make a follow-up decision. "Although Vinh's side has sought to apologize, but my family and I will work through the matter and decide not to reconcile," Dung said.

Previously, on the evening of February 2, Mr. Dung and his son were waiting for the elevator at the apartment building in District 7 (Dao Tri Street, Phu Thuan Ward, District 7). At this time, Dao The Vinh's dog, without a muzzle, walked out of the elevator and approached Dung's son.

Fearing that his son would be attacked, Mr. Dung reminded Mr. Vinh to keep the dog but got no response, so Mr. Dung used his paw to push the dog aside. Immediately, Vinh used his hand to forcefully hit the victim's face, causing him to fall to the ground.

Not stopping there, Vinh also threatened to leave. Dung's son saw the incident and panicked and burst into tears. After that, Mr. Dung reported the incident to the police agency of Phu Thuan ward (district 7).

After the clip about the above incident was posted on social networks, many people expressed anger, saying that this man should be held responsible before the law. The Office of the People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City immediately sent an urgent document to the People's Committee of District 7 to chair and coordinate with relevant units to urgently verify and strictly handle according to the provisions of law the act of releasing wild animals. muzzle, illegality and intentional injury.

After the incident, both the victim and the dog owner spoke up. According to the person who made the move, Vinh felt apologetic and wanted to compensate the opponent for damage. However, Vinh further explained that his dog is only 3 months old, gentle, loves to joke, so it is loved by many people in the apartment. Forgetting the muzzle because at that time had to run down to the lobby to get the shipper. He felt shock and pity when he saw that his dog was treated like that, so he acted out of control.

Mr. Vinh confirmed that when his dog bit the baby's toy in a love-bite fashion, with no sign of attack or danger, Mr. Dung kicked the dog out with his paw. At that time, because he felt sorry for the dog he raised, he admitted that he had lost control and acted inappropriately. After returning to his room and reflecting on his actions, he said that he and his friends went down to the security guard to find Mr. Dung's room number and tried to apologize.

However, according to the victim, when going to the police station to work, the dog owner apologized to Mr. Dung's family, but a woman accompanying him challenged "this is a little bit, it won't work. ". According to the examination results, Mr. D was diagnosed by the doctor as: swelling and bruising of the left cheek, scratching the left cheek, tearing the left eyelid and having to have 5 stitches, broken piece of the left lower incisor, the left chest has a swelling .

"Although my son panicked, stepped back and showed an attitude that he didn't want the dog to come near, I reminded the dog owner who was living in the apartment. However, this person did not make any move to chase his dog out. Because the dog owner did not intervene, my son was approached by the dog and I realized that there was a sign of danger to him, so I pushed the dog away with my foot. Immediately the dog owner rushed to me right in the lobby. At that time, I was afraid to just sit there and take care of my children, "said Dung.

The case of a man who "spoils" in the notary's office: He has threatened many times due to conflict Chi Chu13:13:04 26/02/2023Regarding the case of the man who kicked the face with purple face and spat on the female head of the notary office, it is known that this man is D. has repeatedly cursed and threatened the victim. Ms. T. has also been hospitalized and made a petition for help. In the past...