Prove that it's not reasonable that ANY intruder, even that drunk girl, might use "PHYSICAL FORCE NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT" in open court.
IMO... this is an area that I think you really miss the boat on.
In a self defense shooting, you have already admitted you shot and possibly killed someone.
Now, the burden is on you to convince/prove to a jury that your actions were reasonable and therefore you are protected under the castle doctrine laws as opposed to all of the murder laws applying to you.
What you're doing, IMO, is relying too heavily on the notion that enough of those jurors will:
1) Have the same definition of 'reasonable' as you do.
2) Think to themself...'yes, I would have shot the druken girl (who was unarmed) in the same situation'.
Lets not kid ourselves here. We have all seen some pretty crazy jury decisions, in our own opinions. And thats the key; "in our own opinion".
Remember, you have admitted to a crime and now have to convince/prove others, a jury of strangers, that the amnesty castle doctrine laws apply to you.