Hitting and clipping a puppy dog’s ears for aesthetic purposes it is not a crime of animal abuse, assured a court about the case of a false veterinarian who did not act in order to cause “A serious illness to the animal” when he tried to care for a dog that died after surgery.
The case occurred in Spain when the false veterinarian failed after having performed the cosmetic operation that he did on a puppy dog from the American Bully breed. According to Provincial Court of Valencia, in the judicial process it was not proven that the owner of the dog knew that the operation was prohibited as it was practiced by a man who is dedicated to raising dogs, but who has no training as a veterinarian.
The dog’s owner brought his pet to the home of the fake vet to have his ears trimmed. The first surgery went smoothly. Days later the owner of the canine returned to the place to be they will remove the stitches her puppy and that was where the complications began, according to El País.
The fake vet hit the puppy to show authority
Upon arrival with the dog breeder, the puppy was subjected to having the stitches removed from his ears; however, the breeding of the American Bully breed did not stop moving so the fake vet hit him to “show him authority” and took him by the neck and back to whip him hard on the steel table on two occasions it stunned the animal.
After being beaten on the table, the dog suffered a pulmonary perforation so his owner immediately took him to a veterinary clinic where the puppy lost his life.
After the death of the puppy, the owners demanded compensation from the false veterinarian for having caused the death of their pet for damages suffered, and although initially the dog breeder was convicted of animal abuse and as the author of a crime of professional falsehood, the Valencia Court exonerated him from the first charge.
The above was dictated because it was not proven that the dog breeder caused “a serious illness to the animal, as it does not result from any of the expert tests carried out ”, as indicated by the judgment published by the Court.
“Specifically, there is no evidence that the ear cutting operation altered the functionality of the auditory organ, or impaired the welfare of the animal. In short, the experts have not provided evidence or data that allow qualify this operation as having serious consequences”, He sat in the sentence.
In such a way that the accused in his presumption of innocence forces him to understand that acted confident that he would not kill the puppy “… even in the event that the mere possibility that the blows would have generated complications for health, even for the life of the animal, had been represented. This places their behavior in the ground of recklessness, in this case not penalized, without prejudice to the corresponding civil liability”.
With information from El País.
KEEP READING:
CDMX Congress seeks to classify animal violence as a crime, raises up to two years in prison
Veterinarian Sentenced to 21 Years in Prison for Sexual Abuse of Puppies | VIDEO
RMG
