So let me get this straight. The dogs were previously ordered removed from their building because they presented a clear danger to the other tenants. When they failed to comply, the sheriff showed up with animal control to remove the dogs, but since the dogs weren't ordered "confiscated", they simply turned the dogs back over to the woman, who it had already previously been determined she couldn't control them. During this event, the guy cussed out the sheriff,
threatened to find out where his kids went to school, and also threatened to buy more dogs and set them loose on the building's residents?!
Somehow these threats did not result in his immediate arrest. Not only that, but of course the woman returned with the dogs after the sheriff left. Upon subsequent inspections to ensure dogs were no longer at the building, the two owners deliberately and provably deceived the inspectors by temporarily relocating the dogs during the scheduled inspections. During the weeks after, they continued to let the dogs roam off leash in the halls, with no regard for other tenants, eventually leading to them getting expelled from the building.
What I want to know is.... Why, when the owners had showed undeniably they had no intention of properly controlling their dogs for the purpose of keeping the people around them safe, were the dogs not ordered confiscated? It could have prevented this other tragedy. I hope this woman gets locked up for 20 years for so damaging an innocent child's life.