In a deeply disturbing incident that sparked outrage across Turkey, a man named Murat Sefer Aksoy brutally killed a young dog using a pitchfork in the Çimenceğiz neighborhood of Polatlı, a district of Ankara.
The attack, caught on camera, horrified witnesses and quickly spread on social media, prompting serious questions about animal cruelty, justice, and legal accountability.
The Incident
On 30 August 2024, Aksoy encountered a stray puppy on a roadside. According to multiple news reports, he picked up a pitchfork a tool typically used for agricultural purposes and repeatedly stabbed the defenceless animal, ultimately killing it. The violent act was filmed on a bystander’s phone and widely shared, shocking many who saw the footage.
Authorities were alerted after the video circulated, and Aksoy was arrested at the scene by gendarmerie forces. Initial reports stated that he had been taken into custody and later remanded to jail on charges of intentionally killing a domestic animal
Public Reaction and Outrage
The graphic nature of the killing generated widespread condemnation. Animal lovers, advocacy groups, and members of the public expressed outrage and demanded strict punishment for Aksoy. Many criticised what they saw as a failings in societal protection for vulnerable animals and questioned legal protections against cruelty. Discussions also touched on broader issues of how stray animals are treated and the need for stronger enforcement of animal welfare laws
The Legal Outcome: Competency and Release
In January 2026, the case took an unexpected turn. According to reports from muzir.org, the Polatlı 4th Criminal Court of First Instance ruled that Aksoy did not have legal criminal responsibility due to a finding that he lacked criminal capacity, meaning he was determined to be mentally unable to fully understand the nature and consequences of his actions at the time of the killing.
As a result, the court decided not to impose a traditional criminal sentence, despite finding that the killing occurred. Instead, the judge ordered that Aksoy be placed under security measures, which may include treatment in a high-security health facility, with periodic review to determine whether he remains a risk to society.
Controversial Defence and Broader Debate
During the proceedings, Aksoy reportedly claimed that he believed the government had passed laws encouraging the killing of dogs, a statement widely discussed on social media and interpreted by many as further evidence of his unstable mental state.
The case has reignited debates on several fronts:
Animal rights and protection laws: Critics argue that existing laws are insufficient and poorly enforced. Many fear that violent acts against animals may go unpunished or be seen as socially tolerable if not legally addressed.
Mental health and legal responsibility: The decision to declare Aksoy non-criminally responsible underscores the complex challenges courts face when evaluating mental health in violent crimes. Some believe this sets a concerning precedent; others see it as appropriate within the legal framework.
Social values and justice: The incident has forced a broader societal conversation about compassion, ethics, and how justice systems balance individual culpability with public safety.
Moving Forward
Although the court ultimately ruled that Aksoy could not be held criminally responsible due to mental illness, the incident continues to influence public discourse. Advocates argue that such tragedies highlight the urgent need for stronger animal welfare protections and improved mental health support systems. Only time will tell whether this case will lead to meaningful legal reforms or sustained public awareness.