In Washington, a lower court held that there was only a self defense provision for humans, against other humans, but not against an attack by an animal? (This is what we mean about courts that are often swayed by AR AR AR nonsense………………….)
The appeals court found otherwise, in fact, the appeals court held:
Several decisions of our Supreme Court hold that the common law right to use force in defense of property, subject to its common law limitations, is a constitutional right.
Because the constitutional underpinning ofthose decisions necessarily supports a constitutional right to personal self-defense, Mr. Hull was entitled to have the jury instructed on his right to self-defense to the extent that there was evidence to support it.
As to the animal cruelty count, but not the drive-by shooting count, there was such evidence. We find no other error or abuse of discretion by the trial court. We reverse Me. Hull’s conviction of animal cruelty, remand for a new trial on that count, and otherwise affirm.