Use of Force and Self-Defense in Washington State

Washington's self-defense law is built from a small set of statutes in Chapter 9A.16 RCW, read together with decades of case law from the Washington Supreme Court. Washington has no statute that uses the labels "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine." Instead, the right to use force, including deadly force, comes from RCW 9A.16.020 and RCW 9A.16.050, and the absence of a duty to retreat comes from court decisions interpreting those statutes. Concealed pistol license holders should understand both the statutory text and the way courts apply it.

When Force Is Lawful (RCW 9A.16.020)

RCW 9A.16.020 lists the situations in which "the use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful." The provisions most relevant to a private citizen are:

• Force "used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary" (RCW 9A.16.020(3)).
• Force "reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person," so long as the detention is reasonable in duration and manner and the premises did not reasonably appear to be open to the public (RCW 9A.16.020(4)).
• Force used to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or to enforce necessary restraint for that person's protection, only for as long as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody (RCW 9A.16.020(6)).

The statute also covers force used by public officers, by a person arresting someone who has committed a felony, and by common carriers expelling unruly passengers (RCW 9A.16.020(1), (2), (5)).

The recurring limit in RCW 9A.16.020(3) is that the force used must be "not more than is necessary." Washington defines "necessary" in RCW 9A.16.010(1): no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist, and the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.

Limit on the defense (RCW 9A.16.025)

A person is not justified in using force against another based on the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation. This includes situations involving an unwanted nonforcible advance or a prior romantic or sexual relationship (RCW 9A.16.025).

Justifiable Homicide by a Private Citizen (RCW 9A.16.050)

When force results in death, the controlling statute for a private citizen is RCW 9A.16.050, "Homicide - By other person - When justifiable." Homicide is justifiable when committed either:

1. In the lawful defense of the slayer, or of the slayer's spouse, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in the slayer's 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, and there is imminent danger of that design being accomplished (RCW 9A.16.050(1)); or
2. In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in the slayer's presence, or upon or in a dwelling or other place of abode in which the slayer is present (RCW 9A.16.050(2)).

Two points follow from the text. First, deadly force in self-defense requires a reasonable belief in imminent danger of a felony or of great personal injury, not merely a fear of any unlawful contact. Second, "Deadly force" is defined in RCW 9A.16.010(2) as the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.

The reasonableness standard

Washington courts judge a self-defense claim from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent person knowing all that the defendant knew at the time. The standard combines an objective measure of reasonableness with the subjective facts and circumstances as they appeared to the person using force. If the response is found reasonable, charges may not be pursued; where the facts are disputed, the question of reasonableness goes to a jury.

Excusable Homicide (RCW 9A.16.030)

Distinct from justifiable homicide, RCW 9A.16.030 makes a homicide excusable "when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, without criminal negligence, or without any unlawful intent." This is the current statutory text. Earlier versions of the statute used a "without ordinary caution" phrasing that the legislature has since replaced.

No Duty to Retreat (Case Law, Not Statute)

Washington imposes no duty to retreat before using lawful force in self-defense, but this rule comes from court decisions rather than from any statute. The Washington Supreme Court has held that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be (State v. Studd, 1999; State v. Reynaldo Redmond, 2003). A person who is not the aggressor and who is somewhere they may lawfully be is not required to flee before standing their ground.

There is an important limit. The absence of a duty to retreat does not relax the requirement that the force used be reasonable and necessary. Whether less drastic alternatives were available is part of the totality of the circumstances a jury may weigh in deciding whether the response was reasonable.

Do not treat this as a statutory "stand your ground" law. Washington has no RCW section by that name. The protection exists only as case law construing RCW 9A.16.020 and RCW 9A.16.050.

Defense of Others

The right to use force extends to defending another person. RCW 9A.16.020(3) authorizes force used "by another lawfully aiding" a person about to be injured, and RCW 9A.16.050(1) authorizes justifiable homicide in defense of family members and of "any other person in his or her presence or company." The same conditions apply: a reasonable ground to apprehend a felony or great personal injury, and imminent danger.

Defense of Property

RCW 9A.16.020(3) permits reasonable, non-deadly force to prevent a malicious trespass or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in a person's possession, when the force is not more than is necessary. Washington law does not authorize deadly force to protect property alone. Deadly force becomes lawful only when the situation also satisfies RCW 9A.16.050, meaning a reasonable belief in imminent danger of a felony or of death or great personal injury to a person, or the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon or in a dwelling.

Defense in the Home (No Statutory Castle Doctrine)

Washington has no statute labeled a "castle doctrine," and there is no statutory presumption of reasonableness for force used against an intruder. What Washington provides is the dwelling clause of RCW 9A.16.050(2): homicide is justifiable in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony "upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode" in which the person is present. Combined with the no-duty-to-retreat case law, this gives strong protection to a person defending their home, but the person must still reasonably believe that force, including deadly force, is necessary to resist a felony or to prevent death or great personal injury. Reasonableness and necessity still control.

Reimbursement After a Justified Defense (RCW 9A.16.110)

RCW 9A.16.110 provides that no person shall be placed in legal jeopardy for protecting, by any reasonable means necessary, themselves, their family, or their property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of a violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

If a person charged with such a crime is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state must reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including lost time, legal fees, and other defense expenses. To award those costs, the trier of fact must find that the self-defense claim was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence (RCW 9A.16.110(2)). This is not an independent cause of action, and a judge may deny or reduce the award if the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events (RCW 9A.16.110(3)).

What to Expect After Using Force

Even when a use of force is ultimately found justified, a concealed carry holder should expect the following:

• A criminal investigation. Law enforcement will investigate the incident and review it under the totality of the circumstances.
• A charging decision. If the facts clearly show a lawful defense, charges may not be filed. If the facts are disputed, charges may be filed and a jury may decide whether the response was reasonable.
• Potential civil liability. A criminal acquittal or a decision not to charge does not by itself bar a civil suit.
• A possible cost award. If a finding of self-defense is made in a qualifying case, the defendant may recover reasonable costs under RCW 9A.16.110.

Peace Officer Use of Force (Context Only)

A separate body of law governs use of force by peace officers. It does not set the standard for a private citizen's self-defense, but concealed carry holders may encounter it during or after an incident. RCW 9A.16.040 sets a "good faith" justifiable-homicide standard for peace officers and public officers. Chapter 10.120 RCW, enacted by E2SHB 1310 (Laws of 2021) and later amended, sets a civil "reasonable care" standard: an officer may use physical force only in the circumstances listed in RCW 10.120.020(1), and may use deadly force only when necessary to protect against an immediate threat of serious physical injury or death (RCW 10.120.020(2)). Chapter 10.116 RCW separately bans chokeholds and neck restraints by officers (RCW 10.116.020) and restricts certain tactics.

The Washington Legislature has expressly stated that the peace-officer standard does not narrow a private citizen's rights. The note following RCW 9A.16.040 recognizes that "private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers."

Key Definitions (RCW 9A.16.010)

Relevant Statutes

Bottom Line for Concealed Carry Holders

• Deadly force is lawful only on a reasonable belief in imminent danger of a felony or of death or great personal injury (RCW 9A.16.050). Defense of property alone does not justify deadly force.
• The force used must be no more than necessary (RCW 9A.16.020(3); RCW 9A.16.010(1)).
• There is no duty to retreat from a place where you may lawfully be, but that rule comes from case law (State v. Studd; State v. Redmond), not from a statute, and it does not excuse an unreasonable response.
• Washington has no statutory "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" provision. Do not rely on labels from other states. Rely on the text of Chapter 9A.16 RCW and how Washington courts apply it.
• Even a justified use of force can lead to investigation, charges, and civil litigation. Knowing the law before you carry is part of carrying responsibly.

This summary is general information, not legal advice. Self-defense outcomes turn on specific facts, and case law continues to shape how these statutes are applied. Consult a Washington attorney for advice about your situation.