[TheGoldenState]

The key to the presumption, in my view, is that the person using force must have known, or must have had reason to believe, that the person against whom he did use force had entered unlawfully and forcibly. And therefore to gain benefit of the presumption you, the resident, must be able to establish that you did know or have reason to know that the person against whom you used force did enter unlawfully and forcibly.

So how are you going to satisfy the jury that you knew, or had reason to know, that the scruffy specimen you ventilated in the hallway had entered unlawfully and forcibly -- and that he was not simply invited in by your daughter (to be sure, against your wishes)? Again, that will depend on the details of what actually happened and how it happened. Given all the circumstances, will you be able to articulate to the satisfaction of a jury what factors reasonably led you to conclude that your visitor was on your premises unlawfully and forcibly?

Here is where the confusion and delving begins for me. The unlawfully part-fine, easy, done. The forcibly part is another story. I often leave back doors and windows open late until i go to bed. One would not have to force their way in. So the use of deadly force MUST include both contingencies? I certainly hope not!