COMMENT: My immediate reaction is what a huge disappointment that an owner of a so called "killer dog" gets away with a measly fine of RM2000.
Measly because the elderly gentleman is now dead.
Why didn't the court ban the human creature from ever owning a dog?
Send her for community service but not near any animal shelter, please!
And what happens to the dog itself? It should be spared and rehabilitated.
What do YOU think? Share with us in our comments section.
Here's the story:
Accountant fined RM2,000 after her dog kills man in Subang Jaya
By MAIZATUL NAZLINA
PETALING JAYA: An accountant, whose dog mauled to death a 74-year-old senior citizen in Subang Jaya last month, was fined RM2,000 or, in default, two months' jail by a Magistrate's court here on Monday.
Magistrate Mohd Nazri Omran fined Elaine Soon Sien Ling, 28, after she pleaded guilty to negligence with respect to her pet that endangered Yip Soon Wah.
The offence was committed at No. 59, Jalan SS19/5B, Subang Jaya at about 9.40am on May 8.
She was charged under Section 289 of the Penal Code which carries a maximum fine of six months' jail or RM2,000 fine or both if convicted.
In mitigation, Soon said she had met Yip's family to apologise for the incident.
She said she was not at home at the time. Only her mother, who was a retiree, was at home when it happened.
"My dog is healthy, it is always in the cage and my house gate is always locked," she said.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Siti Fatimah Yahya urged the court to impose a deterrent sentence.
According to the facts of the case, the dog had attacked Yip who was on morning jog, in front of Soon's house.
It bit Yip on the neck causing Yip to lose consciousness. Soon's neighbour, a doctor, confirmed that Yip died at the scene.
On May 8, it was reported that the dog ran out of its owner's house through a loosely-secured rubbish compartment door.
The owner had obtained the dog three months earlier, after her house had been robbed.
PET+BLOGSPOT is the ONLINE BLOG of the Malaysian Animal-Assisted Therapy for the Disabled and Elderly Association or Petpositive. Our stories are CURRENT, ACCURATE and RELIABLE. We offer both local and foreign news on animals, disability and the elderly. PET+BLOGSPOT was first established in October 2007. Our hits since then are now 150,000 and ever increasing! PET+BLOGSPOT is updated daily. Kindly note that views expressed in PET+BLOGSPOT are not necessarily those of PETPOSITIVE. You may also visit our Webpage by browsing: www.petpositive.com.my You can also find us in Facebook under PETPOSITIVE EMPOWERMENT. Please sign up as a FOLLOWER of this Blog if you haven't done so already in order to show us your kind support for our work. Thank you!
6 comments:
Perhaps it was the elderly man who provoked the dog and the dog attacked him. I see no other reason why the owner was only fined RM2.00 From now on I will carry my heavy-duty walking stick when I go for a walk. No dog will attack me and get away with it.
It was a sad news but firstly, I think we shouldn't be judgmental on this case at first. For being neutral, I think she has a good intention to give a shelter for the dog as she had "adopted" the dog and also had sent for every medical attention before adopting, or else she couldn't even get a license for the dog. (while I believe there are a lot out there don't even bother with all these details)
Thus, sorry but to say this, i've sensed prejudism on what you have written : "Why didn't the court ban the human creature from ever owning a dog?
Send her for community service but not near any animal shelter, please!" I was wondering what if she is really an animal lover and instead of giving somebody a chance to even probably ermmm... speak up? As according to the news archives i had went through again, she was not even at home at that time when the incident had happened. I'm imagining if it happens on me, i will definitely feel damn freaking sad and could hardly even get over the mental torturing process. Think about it man...
I just feel that nobody wants those kind of incident happen to anybody. In fact i've learned a powerful word in the news- "Forgive and forget". Even the Yip's family has also forgiven them. This has really change my mind of seeing things now :) as i'm always a hot tempered person.
Oh yeah, this question has hit me out of sudden, is there anyone really cage or chain your dog in your own compound? (i mean what's the point of getting a "pet" to cage them?). I mean provided your rubbish door shuts all the time la..
sorry if i offended anyone, all of the above is just my 2 cents.
Well, as a responsible pet owner, Beacon's' owner should be fined more n banned from keeping any dogs in the future. Simple fact, because of her negligent a man is dead, if she had been more vigilant and responsible....Beacon would Not be on trial now. Have you given any thoughts to Beacon?? Whom may be also attacked when he was protecting himself.... Who will speak on his behalf?.... Did he really attack unprovocated?..... We dog owners are and should be responsible for our pets. Pets relies us 100% to keep them safe , shelter and loving home. Has Ms owner spend any time with Beacon or even sent him for any obedience or socializing training??. For her failure, Beacon may be condemned to a death sentence while authorities are now considering even tighter controls on dogs outdoors.even banning more breds.... Do you know just restrictive and sigma, taking a bull terriers are subject to now??? And at no fault of this poor breed!!,
As it says, there are no bad bred only bad owners!!!
Merely getting a license for Beacon doesnt get her off the hook ... Ms Owner's responsibility to Beacon is a lifetime promise of love, safe shelter and companionship. Has she fulfilled them? Has she spend any time with Beacon? Send Beacon for obedience and socializing training or even aware there are such around?? Because of her negligent and irresponsibility, a man lie dead and Beacon on trial possibility death row. Was Beacon defending himself??
Why wasn't he safely at home?? Who will speak up for him?? Ms Owner? Has she asked for him back?? This may sound hash and cruel, but because of such irresponsible pet owners, dogs and dogs owners are paying the price of stricter ruling, sigma when we take our dogs outdoors even authorities are talking about banning bull terriers!!
For all those who can't keep the promise of a life time of care to your pets , don't keep a dog, get an alarm!
As the phase oes, there are no bad bred just bad owner!
Merely getting a license for Beacon doesnt get her off the hook ... Ms Owner's responsibility to Beacon is a lifetime promise of love, safe shelter and companionship. Has she fulfilled them? Has she spend any time with Beacon? Send Beacon for obedience and socializing training or even aware there are such around?? Because of her negligent and irresponsibility, a man lie dead and Beacon on trial possibility death row. Was Beacon defending himself??
Why wasn't he safely at home?? Who will speak up for him?? Ms Owner? Has she asked for him back?? This may sound hash and cruel, but because of such irresponsible pet owners, dogs and dogs owners are paying the price of stricter ruling, sigma when we take our dogs outdoors even authorities are talking about banning bull terriers!!
For all those who can't keep the promise of a life time of care to your pets , don't keep a dog, get an alarm!
As the phase goes, there are no bad bred just bad owner!
Hi Anthony,
WRT the dog attack affair- taking the bigger picture into consideration, I think I'd be in agreement with you (rather than gettin g all flustered & personal about it).
While I too would empathize with the errant owner's predicament (as mentioned by the commenter above)- I also believe that two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore, he/she has missed the point by a mile.
It is one thing to empathize with a criminal's predicament, and quite another to justify the crime- so I don't think the anonymous commenter above is making any sense at all.
Moreover, every murderer in the slammer has definitely got a sad story to tell .... would she/he sympathize wwith all of them?
I wonder what the commenter above would say of a robber who for the want of some money (maybe for something in his family) , had killed someone close to his/ her heart .... would he/she be using the same rationale?
The owner should have knowingly taken all possible precautions- including blocking the dog's view of passers-by and keeping it secure from all possible "insults".
I'm sorry Anthony- but In my books, The owner was negligent- and it was either amounting to culpable/involuntary homicide or manslaughter ..... and if such a sentence was too heavy, RM2000.00 was definitely too light..
Post a Comment