Rat poison mixed with chicken liver, poisoning dogs results in three years in prison—how can poisoning dogs not be a serious crime?
[2] In Liaoning, after being bitten by a dog in a residential area, Zou mixed rat poison with chicken liver and placed it under the flowerbed hedges, poisoning several pet dogs. He was prosecuted for the crime of spreading dangerous substances. During the trial, Zou's defense argued that Zou had no subjective intent to endanger public safety, that the location where the poisoned chicken liver was placed should not be considered a public place, and that solid chicken liver would not harm the air, soil, or water. Therefore, the defense claimed the act should be classified as intentional destruction of property. The court ruled that the greenbelt in the residential area should be deemed a public place, and the act of placing poisoned chicken liver on the lawn infringed not only on the property rights of pet owners but also posed a threat to the life and property safety of an unspecified majority. Thus, the court rejected the defense's argument, and Zou was ultimately sentenced to three years in prison for the crime of spreading dangerous substances.
[3] The author believes that, aside from the lawyer's lack of expertise (they should not have argued over whether the greenbelt is a public place), this case is a typical example of a "confused judge passing a confused judgment." The prosecutor and judge first conflated the concepts of "major public and private property safety" and "property safety." Zou did not place the poisoned chicken liver in a dog breeding facility, whether for meat or pet dogs, nor in a Siberian tiger park, so there was no "risk of causing harm to major public or private property."
[4] Although the public report did not specify whether the chicken liver Zou used was raw or cooked, the author believes Zou would not have bothered to cook the chicken liver before mixing it with rat poison, let alone make spiced or braised chicken liver. Raw chicken liver is not something people eat, and it does not pose a danger to humans through air, water, or other media. So how could it pose a risk to human health or life?
[5] More importantly, Zou did not place the poisoned chicken liver in a market but in the greenbelt. If placed on the lawn, there might be a risk of children accidentally eating it. However, Zou's specific placement was under the flowerbed hedges. Neither adults nor children would crawl on the ground like dogs, sniffing around and searching for food under the hedges. Nor would any dog owner take raw chicken liver from a dog's mouth to cook at home.
[6] In summary, as one of the crimes endangering public safety, the crime of spreading dangerous substances is meant to protect human public safety, not canine public safety. Zou placed chicken liver mixed with rat poison (not radioactive substances) under the flowerbed hedges in a residential area (not a market or a Siberian tiger park). The poison was not part of the human diet, and the location was not where people forage for food. Moreover, Zou had no subjective intent to endanger public safety. Therefore, his actions do not constitute the crime of spreading dangerous substances.
Although Zou's actions do not constitute the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means, they are indeed suspected of intentional destruction of property. The conviction and sentencing for this crime are basically based on the amount of property destroyed and the number of times destruction occurred. Generally, an ordinary pet dog costs about 2,000-3,000 or 3,000-5,000 yuan. If Zou only poisoned one or two dogs, it should not meet the threshold for the crime of intentional destruction of property. Even if he poisoned five or six ordinary pet dogs, it would not constitute a felony punishable by more than three years. Unless Zou was unlucky enough to poison a valuable dog, a three-year sentence for intentional destruction of property would not be unjust. However, in any case, convicting him of endangering public safety by dangerous means in this case is indeed somewhat absurd.
