Ok so if we review your answers we find that "Animal Cruelty" can be defined as: Shooting or causing an animal, though not ALL animals only some that are deemed to be domestic, but then not just domesticated animals exactly but pets specifically, to be shot regardless of the amount of suffering said shot caused or did not cause, only to be excused by intentional shooting of a non-domesicated-pet animal which is of the hunted game type, during season of course, or the domesticated pet type of animal is known to be suffering.
Furthermore, it can be surmised that "deers" are meant to suffer at the hands of a hunter and there can be no issue of cruelty no matter how bad the shot of the hunter is. It's suffering is not to be considered as valid for consideration of a crime under the law, as long as it is shot by a licensed hunter during season or struck by a car.
We won't even go into the twisted and tortured nuances of "animal cruelty" with regards to farm animals. Shew that could take a while.
The point is that "animal cruelty" laws don't protect "animals" at all, because SOME are allowed to be killed by all manner of ways and it's completely legal. Animal Cruelty "Laws" are simply "feel better" laws because it makes some people "feel better" to know that SOME people will get jail time or probation for the mean things they do to SOME animals.
As I said earlier, I agree with some instances of persons being charged with cruelty like animal torture. I don't however agree with stretching it to cover the percieved, "if you look at it like this kinda sideways it's just like...." stuff.