Mother accuses: – “Farmer set dog on my eight-year-old son”

A mother makes serious allegations after an incident with a dog in the Tyrolean Weerberg. She called the police, and the public prosecutor’s office is now investigating attempted bodily harm. The accused farmer denies the incident, but has previously attracted attention…

“My boy is still intimidated and at first he hardly dared to leave the house,” says the mother from Zillertal. She recently visited relatives in Weerberg with her eight-year-old son. The child was on a gravel road that runs past the adjacent farm. “He was playing with the stones there,” says the local. The boy claims to have heard the dog’s command. Then the escalation: Suddenly the old farmer appeared, started swearing and is said to have set his border collie mix on the eight-year-old. With the command “On him!”, as the child later described. “Luckily he wasn’t hurt, the dog only got him by his pants,” said the mother. Luckily, the older sister intervened. Seconds later, the boy’s older sister (24) ran up and bravely intervened. “The son and daughter came to me completely distraught and crying,” says the woman from Zillertal, describing the excitement. She then filed a report with the Schwaz police. “We have forwarded the facts to the Innsbruck public prosecutor’s office. It’s about attempted bodily harm,” said an official in response to a “Krone” request. Police confirm another earlier incident. The old farmer in question is said to be no stranger to similar cases. The Schwaz inspection confirms that there is at least one incident reported by the police. “That affected my nephew and also the farmer’s neighborhood. “He suffered a wound on his bottom at the time,” says the mother.Farmer: “No attack order for the dog.”She accuses the farmer of saying that the dog is “allowed to do anything” to guard the house and farm. The farmer defended himself during the police interview: the boy had also thrown stones onto his field. And he didn’t give his dog an “attack order.” In a possible trial it will probably be a case of testimony against testimony.
source site-12