We do seem to get ourselves in a lather about legal things, don't we?
If asked (and I admit no one has), I'd say I don't know enough about the circumstances to decide if I should call this shooting or hunting. But either way, I know enough to call it legal.
I also know enough not to compare the legal death of an animal with the death of a human being at the hands of terrorists. If anything is offensive in this thread, it's that.
As for the picture, we have hashed and rehashed this over and over in various threads. The reality is that to many, especially non-hunters, the picture of a giraffe heart would be interesting and to others, off-putting. But no one is forced to look at it (at least not for long).
I recall when a Danish zoo had a genetically surplus giraffe and it had to be taken out of the gene pool. The giraffe was killed and then a necropsy was conducted on the giraffe in the presence of interested members of the public and a group of school kids. Predictably, this sparked outrage among those who weren't there and think that animals are "the same" as humans and should never be killed or eaten (see, for example,
https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/world/europe/denmark-zoo-giraffe). But what's the difference between a picture of a giraffe heart and a nice Kobe beef steak? None in my view, and we need to keep fighting those who would make distinctions where none exist, legally or (in my humble opinion) morally.
If we want to be outraged, I suggest we start with those who attacked this woman.