Dog attack in kulmbach: why were two rottweilers able to attack??

Almost two years ago a bub in ziegelhutten was seriously injured by two rottweilers. On thursday the incident came up in court. The defendant is the dog owner (57): for negligent bodily injury.

Flashback: what happened then? The dogs got onto the road through an open farm gate. The nine-year-old, who walked by there in the afternoon of that saturday in may 2017, was chased and bitten several times by the two rough dogs.

Witnesses hoard "screams of fear"

Witnesses described hearing "screams of fear" of a child had heard. They ran over and saw the boy lying on the ground, bleeding, with the rottweilers on top of him, fending off the dogs with their hands. The injuries to his back, arms and head were more serious than initially thought. In the indictment, a 15 centimeter long scalping injury to the head is explicitly mentioned.

The boy apparently suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder for a long time. A police officer stated that the nine-year-old could not be questioned: "either it was an extreme shock for him or he had blocked out the incident so that he could not say anything."

The bayreuth public prosecutor’s office takes the attack very seriously. A top official from the bayreuth authorities was sent to kulmbach in the person of the group’s prosecutor, jochen gotz.

Ruge from the court

On the other hand, the defendant, who did not give any information about the case, was initially quite lax. He played with his cell phone in the dock and received a reprimand from the court. "That’s not right", said judge sieglinde tettmann, who admonished another listener that she was not allowed to chew gum. What elicited a laugh from the defendant. For this he received the next ruffle: "this is not funny!"

Then there was silence in the courtroom. And defense attorney alexander schmidtgall sent a lengthy preface, mainly directed at the press, to the final hearing of evidence – nine witnesses were heard yesterday – because there was a great deal of public interest in the case. According to the lawyer, he has no doubt that the court is open to results. But this is not the case with the city of kulmbach. The dog owner was "bombarded with coercive payments" has been. It was a real "witch hunt" a case was made against the defendant. "He could not stand it here anymore and moved to austria", said the defender.

Schmidtgall stressed that his client and his client’s wife were "immensely sorry", what happened. But no one could do anything about it. The decisive factor, according to the lawyer, is that there is no liability for danger in criminal law. "The accused must be proven to be at fault."

The crucial question

The decisive question in the trial turned out to be: where were the dogs when the defendant’s wife drove away in the car and the yard gate in front of the garage was open??

While the wife of the accused made use of her right to refuse to testify, the father-in-law described how he had experienced the afternoon. He had been working in the garden with his son-in-law at the time. "Max" and "alfons" were in the house when his stepdaughter got behind the wheel, the witness affirmed. Apparently, she forgot to lock the house and the dogs somehow managed to get out.

On the other hand, a police officer recalled that the defendant admitted during the first interrogation that the rottweiler had been loose in the garden. "But there is nothing about it in the files", the defense lawyer got upset and had to be instructed by the court. Tettmann named the location and asked the witness not to let himself get confused. He stuck to his testimony.

A second police officer gave a bad report to the dog owner. He had too little time for the animals, who were physically and mentally underchallenged. The service dog handler examined the rottweilers, which were not aggressive and vicious. "But the booty, when the boy ran away, set off the behavior of the dogs."

"Risk was too rough"

The witness considered the city’s decision to take the rottweilers to the animal shelter to be correct: the defendant did not realize that the dogs – especially in the vicinity of a school – posed a threat to public safety and order. He had refused to build a second fence on his property and keep the animals away from the strabe. There had been complaints from the neighbors and also problems with the dogs. "The risk was too great that there would be another beib incident."

In two weeks the process will continue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

PHP Code Snippets Powered By :