China News Service Client, Beijing, May 10 (Peng Ningling) On May 10, the "Hangzhou Leopard Escape" incident, which caused a lot of noise in public opinion, has the latest news: relevant personnel of Hangzhou Wildlife World Co., Ltd. have been investigated, The three leopards had fled on the morning of April 19...
This incident not only exposed improper management of the park, but also raised questions about emergency measures after the incident.
Some legal sources said that the zoo’s unshirkable responsibility is to remind the public to pay attention to safety in time for the beasts to flee.
Whether it is the escape of animals, or non-reporting or false reporting in the park, it may constitute a crime.
The second escaped leopard filmed by the media.
Video screenshot.
Leopard's flight time announced
Recently, the "leopard escape incident" of Hangzhou Wildlife World has been continuously searched.
At noon on May 10, the Fuyang government released the latest news: The Fuyang District Bureau of the Hangzhou Public Security Bureau filed an investigation into the suspected crime of the “leopard escape incident” of the relevant personnel of Hangzhou Wildlife World Co., Ltd. in accordance with the law. On May 10, the company was legally legalized Five people including the representative and general manager Zhang Dequan took criminal coercive measures.
At 17:00 in the afternoon, Hangzhou held a press conference on the Leopard's escape from the Wildlife World. Hangzhou Deputy Mayor Wang Hong informed that the three Leopards had already fled at 10:00 am on April 19.
It was reported at the meeting that after the Leopard escaped, Hangzhou Wildlife World did not report it or make it public, and there was serious concealment.
On May 7, under questioning, the person in charge of the Animal Management Department of Hangzhou Wildlife World admitted that at 10 o'clock on April 19, two breeders did not follow the regulations when cleaning, and three sub-adult leopards escaped.
Subsequently, the company held a meeting to discuss, claiming that if the report would affect the flow of May 1st, everyone in the park was required to prohibit reporting to the outside world.
As soon as the news came out, the public responded enthusiastically:
Recalling the "Leopard Infestation" incident
The "leopard infestation" incident in Hangzhou Wildlife World will begin on May 6, when the masses report to the police that a cat that is suspected of being a leopard has been found.
According to media reports, the first person who encountered the leopard and took the photo was the tea farmer Zhu from Longmenkan Village, Zhuantang Street, Hangzhou.
Master Zhu said that at 1 pm on May 1, he went to work on the tea mountain and was about to stand and rest, but he saw the "leopard".
On the afternoon of the 6th, the relevant staff of the Zhuantang Police Station in the jurisdiction confirmed the matter to the media, and they had sent staff to the scene to search.
On the same day, the West Lake Forest Police also searched around Longmen Kan in Zhuantang, but found no trace of the leopard.
On the evening of the 7th, a suspected leopard appeared near Jinyuanshanzhuang Community in Fuyang District, Hangzhou.
On the morning of the 8th, Hangzhou Wildlife World issued a closing announcement stating that “safety issues in the park need to be handled and maintained in a timely manner, so it is temporarily closed.” The announcement did not explicitly mention the escape of the leopard.
Soon, the zoo deleted the closing announcement.
Under the attention of public opinion, afterwards, with the official announcement of Fuyang, the "leopard infestation" incident was finally settled. It was confirmed that the leopard who appeared in a certain district in Fuyang on the evening of May 7 is Hangzhou. One of the three escaped leopards in the wild animal world.
Hangzhou Wildlife World apologizes.
"Hidden Leopard" cited doubts
From avoiding but not talking about acknowledgment, from the announcement of the closure of the park to the deletion of the announcement, several inconsistent operations involving the zoo caused the public to look confused and even questioned the official credibility: Is this mismanagement?
Or is it an attempt to get through?
Also on the 8th, shortly after Fuyang's official notification, Hangzhou Wildlife World issued a statement of apology.
The statement stated that in the early stage, due to the fact that the fled juvenile leopards were less aggressive, they were worried that the announcement of the incident would cause panic, and the relevant information was not released in time.
However, judging from the comments, the public did not buy into this statement.
In the afternoon of the same day, some media released news that the second leopard had been found from the search and rescue team, but was "bitten to death" by a dog, and multiple short videos of dogs surrounding and biting the leopard were circulating on the Internet.
Soon, "Fuyang Release" refuted the rumor, saying that at 17:00 on May 8th, it was discovered and successfully anesthetized and captured an underage leopard that escaped from Hangzhou Wildlife World at 17:00 on May 8th. According to a news release, the second leopard captured by anesthesia is awakening.
Since then, netizens once again pointed out that the media filmed the second escaped leopard suspected to be broken and missing, and the wound had obvious blood stains that had not been bandaged.
The staff of the Hangzhou Fuyang Propaganda Department responded that there was no broken foot and the leopard is healthy. The official announcement shall prevail.
The netizen’s response stated that the response was not convincing enough
"Leopard Flight Incident" Suspected of Crime
Judging from the details that have been disclosed, the beasts fled and the gardens concealed reports, which not only consumed the trust of the public, brought panic to the public, but also brought difficulties to the capture and rescue of the animals themselves, and caused harm to the animals protected by the state.
From a legal point of view, a series of operations of the garden party have been suspected of crimes.
"According to the industry standards of the "Zoo Management Regulations", when a ferocious animal escapes from its cage, the relevant personnel should report it immediately and initiate an emergency response plan." said Xu Ang, a lawyer from Shanghai Universal Law Firm, "remind the public to pay attention to safety in time. It is the zoo’s unshirkable responsibility."
The lawyer said that according to the relevant provisions of the "Safety Production Law": the main person in charge of the park as a production and operation unit has the obligation to report.
If the search range and difficulty of capturing leopards increase due to concealment, which leads to serious consequences, it may constitute the crime of non-reporting or false reporting of a safety accident.
Article 139 of my country's Criminal Law provides for the crime of not reporting or falsely reporting safety incidents.
After the occurrence of a safety accident, the person responsible for reporting fails to report or misreports the accident, delays the rescue of the accident, and if the circumstances are serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention; if the circumstances are particularly serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years. .
In addition to concealing the situation, the third leopard is still at large, and the unknowable danger still exists.
An Xiang, director of Beijing Dexiang Law Firm and deputy director of the Civil Law Committee of the Beijing Bar Association, further pointed out that “As a business unit, the zoo is responsible for the escape of wild animals due to its own negligence and the occurrence of animals hurting people.”
An Xiang said that as far as civil liability is concerned, Article 1248 of the Civil Code stipulates that if a zoo animal causes damage to others, the zoo shall bear tort liability.
From the perspective of criminal responsibility, if the escaped animal causes serious casualties, the zoo may also be liable for a major accident and be sentenced to punishment.
(Finish)