I really don’t think your analogies pertain to this situation. I SAID I don’t think torture should be allowed.
The animal shelter uses a drug that is supposed to kill the dog peacefully. - well, a bullet to the head is quick and painless
The animal shelter isn’t going to potentially miss or just wound the pet the first time. - I think the odds of a shelter doing euthanasia wrong are about the same. It is hard to miss when you have a gun right up to a head. Sure, it could misfire, but at the shelter a needle could break or a machine could malfunction.
The animal shelter isn’t killing the dogs in front of family members. - I don’t think the Amish did that, either, nor do they advocate it.
The animal shelter is authorized by law to it, after presumably getting proper training. - I think this is bogus, you don’t need to be trained how to shoot a dog in the head.
I have a perfectly good perspective on life. Dogs are not people.
Correct and you will note that these defendants were not charged with murder or any other homicide offense.
Your lack of perspective is in ignoring the law already draws distinctions to make clear that this is not the same as killing a person.
The issue here was did the defendants engage in unjustified acts. The facts seem to indicate they did. The dogs weren't sick. They weren't being harvested for food or clothing. They could have been given away. The could have been peacefully euthanized. None of that was considered. Instead, the defendants just cavalierly shot a group of dogs because "their culture" said it was better to just "shoot shovel and shut up" (their words). That is essentially an admission on their part that this was done for convenience and to cover up what they did.