The weapon in the case clearly was not your grandfather’s Red Ryder BB-gun. And it didn’t strike the dog where Dustin says he intended, either. Instead, it penetrated Shadow’s chest and tore his aorta. The dog died in the anguished Ms. Scheele’s lap on the way to a veterinarian.

Lest you read into any of this description of the incident, or the subsequent court case arising from it, any attitude on my part, forget it. I can remember jogging on the Appalachian Trail during hunting season with my late canine pal and constant companion, both of us clad in blaze orange, and hearing oblique muttered threats as we passed hunters on watch. I often fantasized that if any of them were ever to shoot her, I would somehow contrive to strangle him to death. It was a frightening emotion and perhaps an unrealistic fantasy, but as dog-lovers know, that’s the way we feel about our pets. On the other hand, consider the parents of the Amish children slaughtered in their schoolhouse in October 2006 by an apparently crazed truck driver. The parents were able afterward to forgive the murderer and build another school, which they named New Hope. Is there any question that they valued their children less than the Scheeles their dog?

Obviously, there are many ways to react to misfortune, which is what this incident was. Some bloggers (and there are hundreds) have referred to it as a “tragedy,” which skews the definition of tragedy. Others have termed it the cruel, unfeeling action of a “stupid old man” overreacting with far too much force to a moderate annoyance on his “private property.” They may have a point. Very few have written – or at least dared to write – that it’s just a dog, after all. Get over it.

Cited into court, Dustin pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of animal cruelty and was given one year's probation. He was also ordered to perform 100 hours of community service, complete a course of counseling, and pay $4,000 in restitution to the Scheeles for their expenses and damages. But that wasn’t the end of it. Far from it. The Scheeles, apparently unable to have children, rescue special-needs dogs from shelters and raise them much like children – feeding them “people food,” brushing their teeth after meals, and taking them everywhere. Heinous or stupid as it may be to shoot a pet, in this case Lewis Dustin couldn’t have chosen more recklessly.

The Scheeles decided to pursue the case further. The penalties assessed against Dustin were, in their opinion, far too lenient. They filed a civil lawsuit seeking further damages based on the loss of the dog’s companionship and their emotional distress. In a web site devoted to Shadow’s memory, Ms. Scheele has written to her “little boy”: “Every day without you running and playing and cuddling with us is more difficult than the day before. The loss of your presence in our every moment is unbelievably painful. Not a moment passes that you are not in our thoughts, our hearts and our prayers.” Lewis Dustin was soon back in court.

After his guilty plea, penalties, and attorney's fees, Dustin was broke and in no condition to fight additional court proceedings against him. But this case is about far more than the shooting; it’s now challenging the common law principle stating that a pet is personal property, rather than, as the Scheeles hotly contend, a beloved companion, or even a member of the family. Clearly, Dustin needed an attorney to represent him in the argument as it proceeded through Superior Court, which is bound by current law, to the Supreme Court of Vermont, which will rule on its legitimacy based on current notions of the relationship between pets and their owners. Montpelier attorney David Blythe agreed to argue Dustin’s case pro bono in the Supreme Court deliberations.

David Putter, arguing for the Scheeles, has said that current law treats the loss of a dog “the same way as the loss of an end table.” Blythe counters by asking where the line should be drawn between a pet and other personal property. “Can you effectively create a special rule just for dogs? Why not cats? Why not horses?” he asked. He might have extended the list to its logical conclusions: hamsters, cockatoos, boa constrictors. Or he might have asked what will happen to veterinarians’ bills when they must carry insurance to protect against lawsuits for emotional distress caused by the death of animals in their care.

However this case sugars off – a decision is expected from the Supreme Court some time this spring – it’s a fascinating glimpse into cultural changes in our attitudes toward domestic animals. The law, as Mr. Bumble says, may be “a ass,” but it’s just about the only thing that keeps us from chaos. And it can change as we change; for example, it was once not illegal to whip a slave in the United States, and later it was illegal even to own one. I believe that’s got to be reckoned as progress. Whether any change is in the offing of the current law that equates pets with personal possessions is anybody’s guess. For dog lovers, a change would be an affirmation of what they feel. But they might balk at its extension to, say, a nursing tarantula or an iguana. No change would be a load off Mr. Dustin’s mind and property, but an egregious affront to the Scheeles. Either way, it’s not about Shadow himself anymore, or even an old Vermonter with minimal mediation skills. It’s a study in how we create or change law to meet our needs. Stay tuned!