The book is "Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilites", by Dave Workman, latest edition 2004 (updated every year since 1996), published by D&D Enterprises, ISBN 0-9672313-1-0, $9.95. I found it at a local gun shop, but since it has an ISBN, you should be able to order a copy through any bookstore. You can also order a copy directly from the publisher for $9.95 plus $4 shipping. PM me if you're interested and I'll give you the publisher's address.
Half the book gives the laws in all their technical jargon, and the other half explains them in plain English. It covers concealed carry (where, how, when it would be legal to shoot, etc), using holsters, open carry, transport in car and plane, shipping, the use of force, when a self-defense argument is or isn't valid, gun against knife attack, etc. The following quote is word-for-word, right out of the book:
"The law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." ~ Washington State Supreme Court, Nov. 6 2003, State of Washington v. Reynaldo Redmond, 72910-7
When the Washington State Supreme Court reaffirmed that there is no duty to retreat from an assault in the 2003 case of State v. Reynaldo Redmond, it was reinforcing an important 1999 ruling in the case of State v. Studd in which the defendant had shot a person who was holding him at gunpoint. The state high court held, in Studd, that "retreat was not a reasonable alternative to the use of force for a person being held at gunpoint." The court further noted that, in the event a citizen is prosecuted after having used deadly force against another - and who claims self-defense - the trial court "cannot allow the defendant to put forth a theory of self-defense, yet refuse to provide corresponding jury instructions that are supported by the evidence in the case."
This is a landmark concept, and while the "no duty to retreat" doctrine is not unique to Washington State, it is not a universal legal principle. Other jurisdictions do require citizens to demonstrate that they had retreated from a threat, and exhausted the retreat option. In Washington, when a person is "assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be" the assaulted person may defend himself or herself outright.
This is especially so in "a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is." This includes your residence, another person's residence in which you are an invited guest, or the home of a relative, for example. It might also include a hotel or motel room, or even a campsite on public or private land where you have a legitimate right to be.
Even though written several years prior to both the Studd and Redmond cases, in his landmark self-defense book In The Gravest Extreme, author Massad Ayoob accurately sums up the spirit, and intent, of Washington State's self-defense statute by noting that "American laws universally condone homicide only when undertaken to escape imminent and unaviodable danger of death or grave bodily harm."
Ayoob's use of the term "escape" does not mean that the individual needs to be retreating from a deadly threat, only that the citizen acting in self-defense be acting to defend himself from the imminent and unavoidable threat.
Washington State law regarding the use of lethal force in self-defense might best be described as founded on what is commonly called the "Reasonable Man Doctrine." This translates to taking an action that a reasonable and prudent person would have taken, in the same situation, knowing what you knew at the time.
Remember these words, from RCW 9A.16.050: "...when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design..." What this means in layman's terms is when it is "reasonable to conclude an intent" on the part of the person against whom you use lethal force.
Be careful here. It may not be considered good enough at an inquest or in a court trial that you had reason to assume (Remember, when you "assume", you make an Ass out of U and Me...), but it can be argued that you fired because you concluded beyond any doubt that to do otherwise would have resulted in grave bodily harm or death to you and another person.
Translation: The judgement of a reasonable man or woman.
I think that last sentence in the last paragraph is a typo. I think it should read "...would have resulted in grave bodily harm or death to you
and/or another person."
In a later section of the book that answers commonly asked questions, the author again explains that there is no duty to retreat from an attack when in a place in which you have a right to be, which he says also includes public places like a shopping mall, etc (this only applies to Washington, don't know about other states). But he also cautions not to take this to mean that you should play the hero and shoot it out with the bad guy if there's a way to avoid it.
Anyway, there it is.
