rapgood
Regular Member
Someone posted a question last week (or so) about the lawfulness of shooting an attacking dog (I believe, in the context of being in a place where OC is restricted). Search capabilities on this site leave much to be desired, so I thought I'd just post the info as a new thread.
Washington state law on shooting attacking dogs is very straight-forward and has been long-established, both by statute and by caselaw. This is true, regardless of whether there are "restrictions" on open carrying or shooting in the area (I am not responding to any question that my have arisen regarding whether restricting OC is proper in this context. I am replying only to the question of whether shooting an attacking dog is permitted in Washington).
See, generally, RCW 16.08 - Dogs
It shall be lawful for any person who shall see any dog or dogs chasing, biting, injuring or killing any sheep, swine or other domestic animal, including poultry, belonging to such person, on any real property owned or leased by, or under the control of, such person, or on any public highway, to kill such dog or dogs, and it shall be the duty of the owner or keeper of any dog or dogs so found chasing, biting or injuring any domestic animal, including poultry, upon being notified of that fact by the owner of such domestic animals or poultry, to thereafter keep such dog or dogs in leash or confined upon the premises of the owner or keeper thereof, and in case any such owner or keeper of a dog or dogs shall fail or neglect to comply with the provisions of this section, it shall be lawful for the owner of such domestic animals or poultry to kill such dog or dogs found running at large. RCW 16.08.020.
One may kill a vicious animal in the necessary defense of himself or the members of his household, or under circumstances which indicate danger that property will be injured or destroyed unless the aggressor is killed, but it seems that such killing is justified only when the animal is actually doing injury. . . . Every person has a natural right to defend and protect his animate property--as cattle, stock and fowls -- from injury or destruction by dogs, and in pursuance of that object may kill dogs engaged in doing injury to such animals owned by him; but there must exist an apparent necessity for such a course, and the destruction of the dog must be reasonably necessary under the circumstances. . . . The right to kill dogs, in order to protect inanimate property, is based upon the same considerations. Drolet v. Armstrong, 141 Wash. 654, 657 (Wash. 1927).
State v. Burk, 114 Wash. 370, 195 Pac. 16 (1921). In Burk, the Court held that one who kills elk in defense of his or her property is not guilty of violating the law if such killing was reasonably necessary for the defense of his or her property.
Washington state law on shooting attacking dogs is very straight-forward and has been long-established, both by statute and by caselaw. This is true, regardless of whether there are "restrictions" on open carrying or shooting in the area (I am not responding to any question that my have arisen regarding whether restricting OC is proper in this context. I am replying only to the question of whether shooting an attacking dog is permitted in Washington).
See, generally, RCW 16.08 - Dogs
It shall be lawful for any person who shall see any dog or dogs chasing, biting, injuring or killing any sheep, swine or other domestic animal, including poultry, belonging to such person, on any real property owned or leased by, or under the control of, such person, or on any public highway, to kill such dog or dogs, and it shall be the duty of the owner or keeper of any dog or dogs so found chasing, biting or injuring any domestic animal, including poultry, upon being notified of that fact by the owner of such domestic animals or poultry, to thereafter keep such dog or dogs in leash or confined upon the premises of the owner or keeper thereof, and in case any such owner or keeper of a dog or dogs shall fail or neglect to comply with the provisions of this section, it shall be lawful for the owner of such domestic animals or poultry to kill such dog or dogs found running at large. RCW 16.08.020.
One may kill a vicious animal in the necessary defense of himself or the members of his household, or under circumstances which indicate danger that property will be injured or destroyed unless the aggressor is killed, but it seems that such killing is justified only when the animal is actually doing injury. . . . Every person has a natural right to defend and protect his animate property--as cattle, stock and fowls -- from injury or destruction by dogs, and in pursuance of that object may kill dogs engaged in doing injury to such animals owned by him; but there must exist an apparent necessity for such a course, and the destruction of the dog must be reasonably necessary under the circumstances. . . . The right to kill dogs, in order to protect inanimate property, is based upon the same considerations. Drolet v. Armstrong, 141 Wash. 654, 657 (Wash. 1927).
State v. Burk, 114 Wash. 370, 195 Pac. 16 (1921). In Burk, the Court held that one who kills elk in defense of his or her property is not guilty of violating the law if such killing was reasonably necessary for the defense of his or her property.
