Karma? An old man was beaten for stealing a dog and then slaughtered it. He died of a heart attack the next day.

It is difficult to be a human being, and it is also difficult to be a dog.

Be a dog with a strong personality, and it will be easy to be caught and euthanized;

Be a docile dog, and it will be easily dragged away and put into the pot.

Let’s first look at the incident review

Uncle Zhang from Jiaxing, Zhejiang took away the Labrador retriever raised by Master Li that was tied to the roadside, and resold it to a butcher shop owner for slaughter. After Master Li called the police, monitoring confirmed that Uncle Zhang was responsible, and the two parties settled privately through mediation. The day after the mediation, the dog handler, Uncle Zhang, died of a heart attack. The family took Master Li to court for violating his right to life because of his verbal irritation during the mediation process. On the 22nd, Song Yingying, the judge of Xiuzhou District Court in Jiaxing City, who presided over the case, told the Beijing News reporter that in this case, because the dog was dead when it was found and the specific value could not be determined, the police did not identify it as theft. Considering that the time of death was the day after the mediation and that the deceased had undergone heart bypass surgery, after comprehensive consideration, the court determined that the person who lost the dog, Master Li, should not bear responsibility.

If an old man steals a dog, is it considered theft?

The verdict is out, but this verdict is a bit strange. Although the facts are clear and it is determined that the old man took the dog casually, and the word "steal" was used in the wording, the crime of theft was not convicted because "the dog has been boiled in the pot and the value cannot be determined."

What does this mean, or is it sending a signal? So is it possible to imagine a situation where if my neighbor’s dog (even if it’s worth tens of thousands of dollars) barks all day long and I don’t like it, then if I find an opportunity to steal it and cook it as soon as possible, I can avoid legal liability?

Of course, the crime of theft has a definition standard of amount. You can check on the China Courts website that theft of public and private property worth more than one thousand yuan to more than three thousand yuan, thirty thousand yuan to more than one hundred thousand yuan, and three hundred thousand yuan to more than five hundred thousand yuan should be deemed as "large amount", "huge amount" and "especially huge amount" respectively as stipulated in Article 264 of the Criminal Law.

So, because the dog was in the pot and could not judge the value, it seemed to make sense that he was not charged with theft. But as a normal person, would he vaguely feel that something was wrong after seeing this news?

What do you think of the emotional companionship value and purchasing value of dogs?

The one that was put in the pot was the Labrador, because it is also the ideal dog breed chosen by most guide dogs. Because Xiaomengjun advocates adoption instead of buying, so he is not too familiar with the price, but there should be no problem in selling a Labrador for several thousand in the market. If you know the price, please share it in the comment area.

However, dogs have long been classified as companion animals by the country, and are also treated as family members by most dog-raising families. This is a family member and a living life. How should it be measured by price? I have no idea.

The dog thief, Uncle Zhang, died of a heart attack the next day. The dog owner is not responsible. Is it reasonable?

The key to this issue is whether there is a direct causal relationship between Mr. Li’s rights protection and Uncle Zhang’s death. The court believes that there is only a sequential relationship between the two. From a time point of view, Uncle Zhang’s myocardial infarction occurred on the day after the mediation; and Uncle Zhang already had a more serious heart disease and had a higher risk of disease, so it is not enough to prove whether there is a causal relationship.

Who do you think of in similar rights protection incidents?

Previously, Yang, a doctor in Zhengzhou City, Henan Province, caused a dispute when he persuaded an old man not to smoke in a community elevator. The old man died of a heart attack due to emotional excitement. In the end, the Jinshui District People's Court of Zhengzhou City held that Yang's behavior was a legitimate rights protection and had no inevitable causal relationship with the old man's death.

The outcome of Labrador has long been determined.

The various judgments and discussions above may bring about various thoughts, but the only thing that remains unchanged is that the Labrador who was put into the pot will never survive again.

Labrador information picture (not the dog involved)

Or, the moment it was targeted by the uncle, its fate was already determined:

If it is docile, then just like the development of this incident, it will be taken away, resold, and cooked.

If it has a strong personality, whether it bites someone or scares the old man who has a heart attack, death is still waiting for it in the end.