^^^^Been practicing law for 30 years and I'd say that shooting anything that looks remotely like Patty, even intentionally (and self-defense would be a "given" defense to that)would, at most result in a fine for hunting a protected, non-game animal, no matter what the DNA reads. Any other outcome that is predicted is in the realm of legal fantasy and not supported in the law or predicted facts. A fundamental precept of enforceable criminal statutes is that they not be so vague so as to not put a citizen on reasonable notice of the particulars of the prohibited act. Almost by definition, a statute that says "It is criminal to shoot this ape/human/hybrid/other, whatever it is, and we can't tell you what it is, but don't shoot it, because it might be human, but we don't know because we've never identified it" is comically vague and unenforceable. If you can't say up front, definitively, that is a species of human, you can't create a crime after the fact if it turns out to be one. As it stands now, as we all here know very well, even if you did define it as a human, there would be no definitive scientific basis to support that. You cannot place the burden on the perpetrator to discern if what he is about to do is homicide, or not, when the state could not reasonably tell that either when the law was passed by the legislature and signed by the executive. It is just nonsense to predict any other outcome, sorry.
Now, the SECOND person to kill one, after the DNA is sequenced and the laws rewritten? Oh yeah, he or she better lawyer-up, bigly.