The free dog case: The dog owner was officially prosecuted after the challenge?

Regarding the case of the dog owner "affecting" the father to protect the chil.d against the stray dog, the People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City recently officially requested strict handling in accordance with the law. The father in the case is still in and out of the hospital for observation, while the bo.y is afraid of the psychological effects.

Most recently, the Office of the Ho Chi Minh City People's Committee has just conveyed the direction of Vice Chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City People's Committee Duong Anh Duc on handling the case of the father being "physically affected" for protecting his children from harm. A stray dog without a muzzle occurred at Saigon Riverside apartment building, District 7.

The People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City has assigned the People's Committee of District 7 to assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with relevant units, to urgently verify and strictly handle according to the provisions of law the act of raising and releasing animals without muzzle, improperly. regulations and intentionally causing injury in the incident; then report the results to the City People's Committee. Documents of the Office of the People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City are sent simultaneously to the Ho Chi Minh City Police Department and the Department of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs.

Regarding the victi.m in the case, Mr. Dung currently does not accept the apology, and will prosecute in accordance with the law. Two days after the incident, Mr. Dung said he was in a lot of pain and still had to go to the hospital every day to let the doctors take care of the wound. His son seeing his father being "affected" in front of him is also very scared and psychologically affected. His family will not accept the dog owner's apology and has sent an injury assessment to the police to prosecute according to the law!

Previously, public opinion could not help but be angry after watching a clip of a dog owner affecting a man in the apartment lobby. According to the camera extract, the man saw the stray dog, not muzzled, approaching his son, so he used his paw to push it aside. The owner saw that, his attitude was extremely angry, and he waved his hand, causing the man to fall to the floor. Notably, the victi.m's son witnessed the whole thing. The bo.y was clearly scared, holding the toy and crouched in the corner of the cabinet.

After the incident, both the victi.m 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 shoc.k 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 bab.y's toy in a love-bite fashion, with no sign of attac.k 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 victi.m, 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 .

Immediately after that, Mr. D and his lawyer filed a lawsuit in accordance with the law. In addition to the physical injury, the family said that the incident had seriously affected his son's mental health: "I also prevented it because the dog, although it looks small to an adult, is quite big compared to a chil.d. I reminded but the dog owner did not make any move, the dog got closer and closer, so I pushed it away with my foot. At that time, the dog owner pushed me so hard that I could not react in time, falling backwards", he said. D narrated

"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 chas.e 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 the father being "affected" in front of his son for chasing the dog loose: "Shocked" by the dog owner's explanation? N.P12:33:12 05/02/2023Regarding the case where the father was "physically affected" in front of his son for trying to protect his son from a dog that was not allowed to let loose, the dog's owner and also the one who acted in the recent clip. spoke out clearly. Recently, MXH was stirred up by the...