re: “Post 30 confirms they had a history of attacking others, btw. OT rules apply.”
Ok, if the owner had let the dogs run free without restraint, then you would be correct.
But, is that what happened? Were the dogs off of the owner’s property? Was the property fenced?
Was the owner aware that there was an unsupervised 5 year old child that had access to these dogs or they to the child?
I’m not demeaning the tragedy of this event. It is horrible. I have three grown children and two three year old grandsons. I cannot imagine what the families and friends are going through.
That being said, I do not see that the owner violated the Old Testament rules concerning a dangerous animal. If the owner allowed the animals to roam free after having a history of attacking people, then you would have a point. But, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Even post 30 says the dogs dug “under the fence” to get out. Then, according to police, he properly restrained them. What that means I do not know, but unless there is more information given, I don’t see that the owner violated God’s laws. I think we need to be careful before passing the ultimate judgement in God’s name until you have ALL the facts.
The breed is inherently dangerous, it is common knowledge. To deny it is to deny reality that keeps,occurring again and again and again. The never ending streamof stories and horrible, nearly identical every time, re-occurring cases with this breed of dog.