Pictures of the girl’s disfigured face did not suffice to justify the matter, and the picture of her mother, Salma al-Ghandour, her rifle, and the dog swimming in his blood remained the event. The question hanging by many is: Why did the mother commit her crime two weeks following the incident of the dog attacking her child? Why did you kill all the available options and make the choice to kill?
When she came out for the first time following committing her crime, Salma Al-Ghandour was not seeking to deny the murder charge. She carried out her crime premeditatedly, but what prompted her to do so was “the face of my daughter (…) I simply saved my daughter and her shattered psyche, and I wish I had seen this humanity when my daughter was undergoing surgeries.”
The suffering of the little girl
This statement was the last, before her husband, Ghandour Al-Ghandour, prevented her from making a statement. As for why did you do that? The husband tells the story as “my wife told me regarding it.” He says that “she wanted to release the girl, because the dog was hurt as much as he did.” While Ghandour agrees that what his wife did is a “crime”, he prefers to go back to before that moment that prompted his wife to “carry the gun and kill the dog.” He says that his daughter, “following the accident, had a terrifying face, and we had to operate on her.” After the operation, “the child’s psyche became very bad and she refused to leave the house and play for fear of the dog, as she imagined that he would enter the house to bite her, as she imagined that other dogs would come to her from the mountain as well to eat them at night.”
The father adds that during that period, “we contacted the municipality and it did not respond to us, and we went to the police station, and the same thing did not get a response. Then I asked some of the comrades in the village to take the dog to another place away from the house, and they did not respond, and then I asked my wife to feed him in public. Friends”… Until that day “my daughter was returning from school, and when she wanted to get off the bus, she saw the dog, so she entered into a fit of hysterical crying, refusing to get off for fear that the dog would eat her.
The child suffered a nervous shock and no longer went out of the house
No mitigating reasons
However, might what the mother did be a mitigating factor for the crime she committed? Why did the concerned authorities, from the municipality to the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Agriculture, which has the authority, not move following the incident of the dog attacking the girl? Why did these authorities not take the measures stipulated in the Animal Protection and Welfare Law?
Environmental activist Ghina Nahfawi blames the mother for her leniency in making the decision to kill, blaming her for misbehavior. According to the latter, the mother had many options, “she might go to the Public Prosecution Office, demonstrate in front of the municipality, publish her story, or communicate With activists to take the dog for example.” In addition, “this dog has been in that yard for a long time, and children play with him and feed him, and he has never harmed any child before, which is what the investigations showed,” according to a judicial source.
For all these reasons, what the mother did, even if she considered him a savior of her daughter, is a “crime” as stipulated in Article 4 of the Animal Protection and Welfare Law. It is consequently an act of premeditated killing and not self-defense, as the latter is supposed to meet the conditions, “which one is supposed to do in the face of imminent danger, which is not available here because what happened was two weeks following the attack on her daughter.” What environmental activist and lawyer Adnan Al-Labban says.
However, it is not Salma’s responsibility alone, but also the municipalities that bear the bulk of the responsibility, especially since the Animal Protection and Welfare Law delegated the latter full powers with regard to these follow-ups.
As for the judicial track, the complaint file is still in the police station, and the Environmental Public Prosecution is waiting for it to be referred to it to do the necessary before it refers it to the Jeb Jenin Penal Court, which is supposed to issue the final ruling… However, the ruling according to the law “does not require imprisonment, but in the most extreme cases. A fine ranging from 3 to 10 times the minimum wage.
Educationally: the mother’s behavior is wrong
The specialist in marital and family counseling and guidance, Dr. Raed Mohsen, might not portray what Salma Al-Ghandour had done in the context of self-defense, but rather “to prove to her daughter that she is protecting her. To tell her that the dog will not be able to bite you once more and in the belief that she is thus dispelling her fear.”
However, regardless of what the mother may have had in mind, “and she is responsible for it,” however, “this behavior from A to Z is wrong and stems from a lack of education and awareness and from a wrong way to assure her daughter that she is protected.” It would have been more useful, according to Mohsen, for the behavior to be in another way, “such as communicating with the municipality or associations, or any other act besides killing.”