They reported a woman in La Plata because she took the dog to the butcher shop and asked if they could “slaughter” it.

Video: They reported a neighbor from La Plata because she took the dog to the butcher shop and asked if they might “slaughter” it.

An unusual and worrying situation involving a Golden Retriever dog occurred this extra long weekend in a butcher shop located on 5th and 80th streets, in the city of La Plata. According to what an animal protection group reported to the Buenos Aires Police, the woman entered the premises and asked the butcher if they might slaughter her pet. Immediately, agents broke into the house of the dog’s owner, named Toto, with several members of a rescue group from the area and took the animal into custody.

The woman, for her part, following making her defense and trying to explain what her intention was with the pet, was detained at the Eighth Police Station in La Plata. There, by order of UFI No. 7 of the La Plata judicial district, he was informed of the initiation of a case for violation of the Sarmiento Law, which prohibits the mistreatment of animals.

The conversation at the door of the woman’s house, which was filmed by rescuers, went viral on social networks. “Good morning, madam, you have a complaint for taking the dog to the butcher shop to slaughter it,” the rescuer who broke into the home to check the veracity of the facts is heard saying.

“I don’t understand what the problem is,” she responds completely lightly and implying that she did nothing wrong. “I explain to him. My dad and my grandfather are from the countryside. They always worked in the Hipódromo neighborhood with horses. “When the horse reaches a certain time, he is sent to slaughter,” I continue, by way of justification.

La Plata: this is how they took the dog to the police station

“What does fishing mean to you? Explain to me,” the rescuer asks her to try to understand if she really intended to leather the dog or was simply confused with the concept. “Slaughter is like the cow,” she remarks. “First you peel it, you remove the fur. Then you leather it and use the meat. That is done with animals,” she adds. Then, she implied that her pet was already advanced in age.

Upon hearing such atrocity, the protectionist says: “We are going to kidnap the animal and give it up for adoption.” Seeing herself in this dilemma, the woman refuses to have the dog taken out. “Don’t do that to me,” she laments while the protectionists explain that they are going to take him away so that the dog does not run the risk of being killed.

After exchanging several insults, the dog is finally placed inside a kennel that was in the trunk of a truck to be transferred to a shelter. “Bye Toto,” she is heard saying to the woman to say goodbye to the dog.

Toto, the dog that his owner wanted to kill

This dialogue occurred in the presence of police officers from the Eighth Police Station, who went to the scene to inform the woman of the formation of the case once morest her.

Beyond this case, in recent days a court ruling was known that also had a dog as the protagonist. A woman decided to emigrate to Europe and in Argentina she left everything of her, even her small breed dog, which was left at a friend’s house, who she knew was going to take care of her.

“Leave it to me, so when you come to visit you can see it,” it was heard. But plans changed and the traveler returned the following year. When she went to claim her dog, her friend resisted handing it over: she had understood that she was leaving forever. The misunderstanding turned into a legal case.

The National Court of Criminal and Correctional Appeals of the city of Buenos Aires confirmed the dismissal of the accused and a family member: who received the animal, cared for it, fed it, took it to the veterinarian for almost a year and “faced onerous expenses.” ”, he had the right to think that it would be his definitively and there was no “fraud” in his actions.

The dispute opened its judicial chapter between March and April 2022, when the dog had already been returned to its original owner. According to him, one followingnoon he let him go for a walk with a relative who had taken care of him in his absence. He did not return the pet at the agreed time and, days later, there was a street altercation, which included the dog being pulled between the two women.

It was then that the criminal complaint was filed for “fraud due to improper retention”, as a result of not having “returned in due time” to the dog, despite informal intimations and by document letter. The pet returned to the complainant a month later, but the criminal case continued. Last December, the defendants were dismissed for lack of intent. This first instance ruling was appealed by the plaintiff and has now been confirmed.