A video capturing a heated dispute involving a dog owner, a security guard, and a resident over the use of an elevator has gone viral on social media. The incident occurred when the dog owner insisted on using the same elevator as a frightened child who was crying loudly due to the dog’s presence.
The video was posted on X (formerly known as Twitter) by the Greater Noida West account. The translated caption reads, “Gaur City 7th Avenue: A distressed child was already inside the elevator, crying out of fear of the dog, but the dog owner’s companion was determined to use the same elevator because his dog was wearing a muzzle.”
The video begins with an individual entering an elevator in a housing society with their dog on a leash. Despite the dog wearing a muzzle, a security guard prevented the owner from using the elevator, explaining that a child was scared of the dog and didn’t want to share the space with it. In response, the dog owner insisted that the child should leave the elevator if they were afraid of the dog.
Another resident intervened and suggested that the dog owner wait for another elevator. However, the dog owner remained steadfast, emphasizing that he was following all the rules and that his dog was muzzled.
The video was shared on September 25 and has been viewed by over 8.5 lakh (850,000) people, with the view count continuing to rise. Many individuals commented on the video, sharing their opinions:
1. “A similar incident happened when I was staying in a PG,” one person shared.
2. “Humanity is dying every day, people are not ready to understand the situation of others. The kid was weeping, and he is still trying to enter the lift, why can’t he wait until the lift returns back,” another added.
3. “Dog parents should also demonstrate patience and flexibility, wherever possible,” expressed a third.
4. “I live in Gaur City 2 and have never seen this kind of behavior from any dog lovers. All the dog lovers here are so humble, and I have seen them waiting long for the lift when nobody is using them,” a fourth commenter noted.
