Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
My interpretation is that homicide is justifiable, when there is reasonable ground to assume that the person slain was going to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or any person in the slayers presence. Number 2 pretty much justifies homicide in the circumstances of using deadly force on someone who is committing a felony in the slayers place of dwelling, or place of abode in which he is.
RCW 16.08.100 section C:
3) The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human, whether or not the dog has previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a class C felony punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the human severely injured or killed by the defendant's dog: (a) Trespassed on the defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog; or (b) provoked the defendant's dog without justification or excuse on the defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog. In such a prosecution, the state has the burden of showing that the owner of the dog either knew or should have known that the dog was potentially dangerous as defined in this chapter. The state may not meet its burden of proof that the owner should have known the dog was potentially dangerous solely by showing the dog to be a particular breed or breeds. In addition, the dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, quarantined, and upon conviction of the owner destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner.
Here is an email I received from the King County Prosecutor's Office
Thank you for contacting the King County Prosecutor's Office regarding the defense of your home from a burglar and the justifiable homicide statute. We appreciate hearing from you on this important topic.
Washington State lawclearly gives a homeowner the right to use all necessary force to repel the invasion of their home.Our office has not charged a homeowner for using force against a burglarin the past.
However, every case must be reviewed on its own facts for whether the use of force was reasonable and necessary before we apply the justifiable homicide statute. We oftenencounter cases where the level offorce used in response to the level of threat posed is unreasonable and unnecessary. Wewould review every use of force caseindependently.
I hope this information has been helpful.
King County Prosecutor's Office