Zwollenaar (53) has to go to jail for half a year for killing his dog: “It’s over with the beasts!” – Weblog Zwolle

Zwollenaar (53) has to jail for half a year for killing his dog:

Photo: Peter Denkamp / Deployment: Zwolle Police

Zwolle – A police judge on Friday sentenced Martin W. in absentia. (53 years) from Zufuleh, with a six-month prison sentence. He was found guilty of killing his dog Level on May 31, 2021.

W. tied the Staffordshire Terrier’s front legs together and then dumped the defenseless animal into the Zwolle-Iegesel Canal. The dog died from drowning. Alex Van E. , a 37-year-old resident of the city, received a suspended twenty-hour community service order with a two-year probationary period. He was there when he tied the dog up and pushed him into the water.

On May 31, 2021, Martin W. decided to walk his dog at Level. Alex Van E, who is a good friend of his, walks along. Van E. notes that people walk much longer than they normally would. He knows W wants to get rid of the dog. For example, W called an animal ambulance, farm, and animal shelter. They don’t want the dog. Van E. has already offered to grab the dog. F refused because he could see that Van E. was not capable of taking care of a dog. When the men with the dog reach the Zwolle-IJssel canal, it begins to dawn on Van E. What will happen. Van E explains.

There wasn’t much wrong with the level. According to the prosecutor, the dog sometimes growled. Van E. says the same thing in court. “There was no harm in the dog or anything.” The judge wants to know from Van E. why he just stood by and didn’t get involved. Van E. says about and. “I was afraid of him, he is so much bigger and stronger. He beat me to the bone.” He further states that he was unable to jump into the water later. “It’s a dock at least a meter and a half high, it’s all industrial and big ships sail there. The dog was gone right away, so it’s already too late anyway,” says Van E.

A few days later, on June 3, Levell’s body was found. Soon great social unrest occurs. The name of a person unrelated to the crime is being circulated incorrectly on social media.

W is not arrested until later, and says during police questioning that he had nothing to do with the dog’s death. He shifts the blame to a farmer who allegedly dumped the dog on him. The police are using a lot of manpower to further investigate the case. It turns out that W’s allegations are not true, so after a tip tip, W and Van E come into the picture as suspects.

Police discovered in the phone and. That one day before the dog was thrown into the water, the animal shelter was called. Later, a conversation between W and Van E is also recorded in a police car. W then tells his friend that he takes the blame. The judge wants to know if Van E. is still friends with W. “No, I walk by his house and I will never forgive him for what he did.”

The judge concludes from the file that both residents of Zful are well known to the police and the judiciary. Includes criminal record for “and.” Also a life offense from 2000. The probation service indicated that “and.” Currently still doing community service and that is challenging. Van E is homeless and has many problems, including alcohol addiction. Several criminal cases are still pending against him, and steps have been taken to cure him of his addiction.

“It’s over with the monsters,” the attorney general said as he began his petition. He asserts that the crime caused great social unrest. “There was even a smear campaign on social media against the wrong person.” The crime also shocked the officer. F.’s criminal record and that he misled the police also don’t speak in his favor. Therefore, the Public Prosecution is calling for an unconditional prison sentence of six months. Van E.’s role is smaller and, according to the prosecutor, he was not actively involved in Level’s murder. However, the officer demands two months in prison because Van E. did nothing when the animal was killed.

Van E.’s attorney, Carolyn Pronk, disagrees. She says that there is a force majeure. Her client was physically and mentally unable to take action against W. The Chancellor believes that Van E. did something to prevent Level’s death. “He offered to take the dog. W. refused to give him the dog. He would rather throw the animal in the plum.” She disagrees with the officer, who argues that Van E. could have entered the water to try to save the dog from drowning. “The best helmsmen on the beach,” says the lawyer. “Jumping into the water at that spot is not without danger. You can break your neck or your legs.”

The officer argued that the dog had been thrown into the water during the day and the water was warm enough for the rescue attempt. That, too, is short-sighted, says Pronk. “You should be able to get out of the water again.” According to the police report, the pedestrian is about five feet tall. Impossible for Van E., according to the attorney. “My client is not that sporty.”

It does not need many words for the judge to find W guilty of murder. “It’s unimaginably cruel,” said the judge. This is because, according to her, it is not easy to tie the legs of a large, strong and above all healthy dog. According to her, this only works if the animal trusts W unconditionally and thus allows it. She therefore believes that an unconditional prison sentence of six months is appropriate.

Van E was also found guilty on his part. “Once the dog was tied up with both legs, he needed help. Van E should have done something after that.” A judge imposes a conditional community service order on Alex van E. for twenty hours. This is with a two-year probationary period.

Leave a Comment