the point is that the family can experience trauma, and thus the killer may not escape liability.
it isn't a reclassification of the animal.
and no, killing a beloved pet is not the same as livestock that is raised to be slaughtered eventually.
I like your perspective in the first part, but I also routinely see livestock that are treated like beloved family pets... milk cows, goats etc... They even have names in my patient portal as given to them by their owners. They're as current on vaccinations and deworming as your dog is. More, a lot of them actually provide a source of sustenence with milk and cheese in addition to 'companionship'. And no, many of those will not be slaughtered in the end, and simply become yard ornaments like many family dogs. You might think it funny that I'd be called out to euthanize a pet cow, but I've done it (owner couldn't bring themselves to shoot it).
I still believe that a ruling like this opens the door for litigation more... and how are we going to determine which animals get to be immediate family members and which aren't?
This wasn't a call out man, I'm not trying to put anyone on the defensive.
I just wanted to note that people across the country are going to have differing opinions on what is a pet and what isn't.
