Whatever I’ll say it. Is she a dangerous sociopath, very likely. Does what she did to the goat fit the definition of the South Dakota law written above, doubt. A judge/ jury would find she thought a gunshot would kill the goat, and shot it. And since it is her story no one can prove she pranced around or did anything other than what she said she did, which was go get another “shell” to end its life. Her compete disregard for other peoples lives/feelings/wants/freedoms make her a shit person who should fear the possibility of her claimed religion being real. But being a shit person isn’t part of that law.

What I don’t understand is why I’ve seen people say she used a pistol and she keeps using the term shell. Her wording seems specific to her using a shotgun to shoot the goat, which should make it harder to miss… But it isn’t a guarantee. But my point being is that if she shot the dog with a pistol she had on her, she would have had to put the pistol away, see the goat, go grab a shotgun from the truck and shoot it at least once, and realize she was out of shells and go back.

She may need to see a specialist to figure out if she should be committed, but I don’t think anyone could prove she broke a law.