1. The dog owner did make a mistake first and didn't tie the dog leash. According to the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on Animal Epidemic Prevention (if he takes his dog out of the house, he should wear a dog tag and take measures such as tying the dog rope in accordance with the regulations to prevent the dog from hurting people and spreading diseases. ) It is illegal not to tie a dog leash! There is no doubt about it.
2. According to the surveillance video of the incident and the video interviewed by the child's mother, the child's mother admitted to insulting and beating the dog owner first. Because this behavior did not cause minor injuries, it is impossible to bring a lawsuit to the people's court for intentional injury and investigate its criminal responsibility. Only according to the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" (beating others, or intentionally hurting others' bodies, they shall be detained for more than five days and less than ten days, and fined more than 200 yuan and less than 500 yuan; If the circumstances are minor, they shall be detained for not more than five days or fined not more than five hundred yuan. ) to punish. The police handled it reasonably, and both of them were three days.
3. If the child's mother reports a false alarm, according to the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment, the public security organ has the right to detain and fine her according to the relevant provisions of the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment. Because reporting false cases has caused serious social harm and has constituted a criminal offence, criminal responsibility should be investigated according to law. In the police notification given by the government, the matter of reporting false police was only a passing one. I personally think for the time being that the police didn't punish the child because the child was frightened and anxious as a mother.
The dog owner made some controversial remarks when confronted with the child's mother. "If you touch my dog, I'll kill your child" and so on. In this regard, according to Article 42 of the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment, the dog owner was punished by being detained for four days.
These are basically the results of police handling. They all made 50 criticisms, but they were all wrong. The mother of the child should be lighter. I think the police are fair.
I have another question for you:
Why didn't you make a punishment decision at the first time? These things have clear laws and regulations and are easy to handle. Instead, wait for the relevant video to burst out on the Internet, causing "netizens" to criticize the dog owner, and then make a decision that the result is slightly biased towards the child's mother. I think this is worth thinking about.
What I don't understand is that when a child is scared by a dog, the child's mother does not choose to call the police or make a good theory, but verbally insults him and even slaps people's mouths. Isn't this a deeper childhood shadow for children? I'm afraid this is inconsistent with the original intention of protecting children.
From the perspective of laws and regulations, whoever starts a fight first is equally responsible. What about morality? Should the first party be morally condemned? Obviously, the vast number of "netizens" have a dual goal in this respect.
Judging from the news on the internet now, both of them live in a community, which proves that the dog owner can afford the house, and the child and mother can also buy it. Is the child's mother rich? This has to be expected by netizens. There is also news that there is an internet cafe in mom's house, which is interesting to you. I don't know if you noticed it in the local area. Who can open an Internet cafe? Now the procedures in Internet cafes are so difficult, which may be irrelevant and laborious. Internet cafes maintain normal business, and someone can calm the troubles in the Internet cafes. What strength do you need to rely on? I think these two points are not balanced. This internet cafe can't be done well. Generally speaking, there are black and white cats in my mother's house, hahaha. Of course, the above guesses are mostly.
The following excerpt is from another anonymous friend's answer:
My biggest feeling after reading it is fear.
The other party slaps you first and exposes you in the video. Being beaten home doesn't count, and the other party won't report you. Call the fake police and ask you to come out.
I watched the whole video. The boss's dog is a puppy. It didn't stop when it passed by her, so if it jumped on someone, it would be impossible to run to the front. I don't know how much that dog is worth, but it looks like a cork that can't reach its calf.
The woman opposite turned over, organized the dog owner to leave, and then pointed at him and scolded him. Finally, she was slapped in the face and the dog owner was stunned. When I was called home by the police, the dog owner was hysterical. To tell you the truth, I totally understand and have some sympathy for him.
In the comments section, there are always people who say that I have branded people who resist raising dogs as enemies of the rich. My ideas are all simplified Chinese, which I can't understand. If I have to drag myself in by force, I have nothing to say.
Some people say I'm from the water army. I hope you can help me contact the dog owner and turn it for me, hahaha.
You only said what you wanted to say, but you didn't say a word about what I said above about what Huizhou banquet staff should do. Your online judges are so busy with themselves that they don't care about the lives of employees at all.
Many friends who support me dare to speak frankly in the comment area, and some friends only dare to nod silently or express their support in private letters. Why do you ask? People are really afraid of ruining these online judges.
About what the dog owner said, if you want my dog, I will get S children. Some netizens said that they could not encourage this arrogance of spending money to buy a life, so they had to use public opinion to ruin his business and drain his capital, so that he had no capital to do such a thing. There are some smart people who really compare their lives with those of dogs, not to mention people like you. I really want to say that it has been 202 1 year, and some people still think that they can do whatever they want with money. You can't lose your life if you have money? Direct murder is intentional homicide, abetting murder is intentional homicide, and buying a murderer is also intentional homicide. Leading several people to kill is the crime of organizing and leading the underworld plus murder. Don't be naive. If you are killed, you have to bear huge compensation. In the history of our country, any generation of killers have to pay the price.
Do you think it's because rich people have poor shoulders or something? Paying such a high price is to kill you. Isn't it sweet to have money to buy a car, buy a house, travel and manage money? You don't care, do you deserve it?