I think it’s great to use this ruling in cases of animal abuse. The penalties for cruelty to animals seem too low for some of the horrendous things that people do. So it applies right now to animal abuse which is intentional, not anything accidental. My home state has moved way to the left since I left in the early 70s but I think this is a good ruling.
Oh...I do think we crossed a slippery slope on this one. True animal abuse is indeed under penalized, so why not address the law instead of making up law from the bench?
Similarly I don't see the big deal in this.
If one really takes issue with (some) cruelty to animal laws they can always lobby and rally to have them repealed.
This is a very slippery slope.
Remember one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that “Man has dominion over the animals”. The Left has been trying to attack this basic tenet of Christianity for decades, it’s the raison d’etre for the whole Animal Rights movement.
Like eating them?
Animal cruelty is wrong (Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel). I just don't know how one enforces this 'victim' rule, since animals are made to be tasty vittles (Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things).