Man gets probation for drowning aggressive dogBy Owain Johnston-BarnesA St David’s man who drowned his dog after it killed a neighbour’s Pomeranian yesterday received two years’ probation.Nasir Brangman, 24, pleaded guilty in December to cruelly killing his pit bull Bruno, on November 5.The court heard that Bruno attacked and killed a neighbour’s dog on Lighthouse Hill in St David’s.Brangman admitted he’d drowned the animal, when confronted by a warden investigating the incident.The dog’s body was later found at Clearwater Beach.Brangman told Magistrates’ Court yesterday: “That day I was just trying to make things right. Reflecting on my actions now, I know what I did was wrong.”His lawyer Richard Horseman described his client as an upstanding young man who was aware he made a very bad decision in the heat of the moment.“When he came home and saw that his dog had attacked and killed is neighbour’s dog, he made a very bad choice,” Mr Horseman said.“In his mind his motivation, as he said in court, was that he felt so bad for the neighbours dog. He thought what kind of damage it could do to a child. He didn’t want to cause them any more grief.“It was out of a sense of protecting his neighbours and his neighbourhood that he did this action, but it should have gone another way.”The lawyer also noted a social inquiry report carried out on Brangman, which he described as one of the most positive he had seen, telling the court the incident was entirely out of character.Brangman spent seven days in custody on remand after he pleaded guilty to the offence in December.He was released on bail after the decision was appealed in the Supreme Court.Yesterday Brangman’s aunt said any mother would be proud to have her nephew as a son.Prosecutor Susan Mulligan stressed that the court needs to send a message to deter others from following in Brangman’s footsteps.“What he did on this occasion has to be considered one of the worst offences of animal cruelty,” she said. “It shocked the community, and it was an extremely cruel thing to do to your own animal.”Mr Warner said the element of deterrence was important, but should be balanced against the personal circumstances of the defendant.“He is a young man with no previous convictions,” Mr Warner said. “That is a compelling factor as to how this matter should be dealt with.”Mr Warner also noted Brangman’s successful Supreme Court appeal against being held in remand, saying: “I make no apologies for that remand. The Supreme Court did its duty, I did mine.“I am of the view that, although there was no full hearing on the facts in Supreme Court and I may be mistaken, that it has indicated by his release on bail that it’s not the type of facts and circumstances that should carry a custodial sentence.”He sentenced Brangman to two years’ probation with the condition that he take part in any programmes recommended by Court Services.SPCA Chairman Andrew Madeiros said yesterday he was disappointed that nothing was said on sentencing to indicate Brangman would be banned from owning animals in the future.“Two years’ probation is great,” Dr Madeiros said. “The fact that he spent some time in prison is not a bad thing as far as discouraging others. A fine would have been good.“But I think that someone who makes these types of decisions should be a person who is not allowed to care for animals. I would like to see something in the sentencing specific to animals.“Otherwise, the guy could get a dog tomorrow and do the same thing. Another animal could be at risk.”