A recording shows the dog being thrown into the sea. More serious still, police later had to correct their initial account of who cared for the animal. We separate visible facts, official statements and open questions.
What the recording shows – and what it does not
The roughly 41-second video shows a police boat off Kraj on the island of Pašman. At around 21 seconds, a police officer can be seen throwing the dog over the open stern into the sea. The visible sequence is incompatible with a voluntary jump.
No attack by the dog on an officer can be seen at the filmed moment. However, the video begins in the middle of the operation and shows neither the complete events aboard the sailing yacht nor every action on the police boat. It therefore cannot exclude a danger perceived earlier. Nor does it establish an injury to the dog or the water depth beneath the boat. Those limitations are as much part of the truth of the recording as the visible throw.
The operation on 8 August
According to the Zadar Police Directorate, a report was received at around 17.40 on 8 August about a sailing yacht obstructing swimmers in a cove near Kraj. On the boat, officers encountered a 37-year-old Croatian citizen wanted in Karlovac County on suspicion of offences against marriage, children and family.
Police describe violent resistance: the man allegedly jumped into the water with the dog, repeatedly pushed its head under water, and later attacked and insulted officers on the service boat. The man and a police officer reportedly suffered minor injuries; alcohol was detected in the detained man. These allegations concern the man’s conduct. They do not automatically answer whether the later treatment of the dog was necessary and proportionate.
The first police account of 9 August
In its first statement, the police directorate wrote that the dog had jumped onto the service boat by itself. Because of an immediate risk of running aground and a possible dog attack, it said the animal was lowered into the sea in consultation with a municipal warden, who received it there and continued to care for it.
The video contradicts at least the abbreviated impression that the dog left the boat under its own power: what is visible is a throw over the open edge of the stern. The claimed danger of grounding can neither be confirmed nor safely disproved from the limited frame. The footage does not show imminent contact with the seabed or a forced emergency manoeuvre.
What the helpers described
A witness interviewed by Index said he did not see the throw itself, but did observe the situation afterwards. The dog initially swam after the police boat, then returned to the sailing yacht and could not climb the ladder by itself. Swimmers helped it with a SUP, brought it back aboard and provided water and food.
The dog was not aggressive towards these helpers. That is an important but time-limited observation: the witness describes its behaviour after the throw. He cannot assess what happened earlier between the dog, owner and police. His statement is therefore strongest where it was later officially confirmed – in answering who actually provided the dog’s initial care.
On 10 August, police correct the sequence
One day later, the police directorate published an addition. It now said that the municipal warden had agreed to arrange care, but was not yet at the location at that time. Before he arrived, members of the public on the beach cared for the dog. The animal was later handed over to a trusted person designated by the owner.
This makes a central part of the initial official account incorrect: the warden did not receive the dog immediately after the throw. The correction essentially confirms the intervention by members of the public. There has so far been no public explanation of how the original account arose. Calling it a proven lie would nevertheless go too far – that would require evidence of a deliberate intention to deceive.
Three questions must not be conflated
First, serious allegations have been made against the detained man. Second, the officer’s specific treatment of the dog must be assessed. Third, the reliability of an official statement that required correction on an essential point is at issue. None of these questions makes another unimportant, and none can serve as a blanket excuse for another.
The fact that dogs can generally swim does not resolve the second question either. An animal thrown into the water must orient itself, gain distance from the hull and propulsion system, and find a safe exit. After the throw, the visible sequence shows no identifiable control of its swimming route. This does not reveal the officer’s inner attitude – but it is a factual point for an internal and animal-welfare review.
The legal standard is clear; an individual assessment is missing
Article 5 of Croatia’s Animal Protection Act prohibits causing animals pain, suffering, injury or fear. The expressly listed prohibited acts also include submerging and throwing animals. That is the relevant legal standard for examining what can be seen.
Golden Beach is not thereby finding that the officer broke the law. A reliable assessment would require the responsible bodies to examine the complete operational situation, any specific danger, available alternatives and consequences for the dog. As of this article’s reporting date, no public final assessment by an internal review, veterinary inspection, disciplinary body or public prosecutor is known. No veterinary findings have been published either.
When travellers observe an animal-welfare incident
In immediate danger, rapid help matters: in Croatia, 112 connects callers to the relevant emergency services, while police can be reached on 192. A non-urgent animal-welfare report can additionally be submitted through the State Inspectorate’s electronic form. Anyone who filmed an incident should preserve the original file unchanged, note the place and time, and clearly distinguish personal observation from information related by others.
Public searches for names, pursuit of individuals and sharing private data do not assist clarification. Evidential value comes from a traceable original file, a precise first-hand statement and the correct reporting channel. That is why we publish the video here with its source – without autoplay, dramatic music or turning 41 seconds into a complete operational history.
What remains open
Still open are the official assessment of whether the throw was necessary, any internal or disciplinary steps, veterinary findings and the dog’s longer-term whereabouts. Police mention only its later handover to a trusted person designated by the owner. That does not establish the animal’s current health or accommodation status.
This article is therefore a dated interim account, not the final word. New reposts of the video or outraged comments do not change the factual record. Relevant developments would be a reasoned official decision, documented veterinary findings or a verifiable explanation of why the initial official account of the dog’s care was wrong.
Evidence
Sources & date
Sources support the facts. Planning notes and recommendations are Golden Beach editorial assessments.
- Pašman: Statement on the incidentZadar Police Directorate · 9 August 2026Operation, arrest, injuries and first official account concerning the dog
- Pašman: Supplement to the information about the incidentZadar Police Directorate · 10 August 2026Correction regarding the dog’s initial care and subsequent handover
- Pašman footage and background to the operationMorski.hr · August 2026, original file checked 12 August 2026Published source of the embedded original video
- Witness on care of the dog after the police operationIndex.hr · 9 August 2026Time-limited witness statement about assistance after the throw
- Animal Protection Act, NN 102/2017Narodne novine / Republic of Croatia · legal position checked 12 August 2026Article 5 on pain, suffering, fear, submerging and throwing animals
- Electronic reporting formState Inspectorate of the Republic of Croatia · ongoing service, checked 12 August 2026Reporting route and attachments for non-urgent inspection reports
- European emergency number 112Croatian Civil Protection · ongoing official informationImmediate reporting route in an emergency
