The important thing to note here, Marie, is that our poster specified an "unarmed intruder," that is to say that a BG has entered your residence. Our poster left out the part where you are justified in use of force to prevent entry, given the manner of entry specified in the statute, and the use of force is justified in the commision of a felony once entry is made (note that once entry is made, the bar for use of force is lowered from forcible felony to just a plain old felony, which happens to cover almost any illegal activity from that point on).
I don't believe you'd have to do much explaining to do since most of the criteria for the justified use of force had been met in this scenario.
Here is my question..... Someone breaking into a residence by statute is criminal trespass and possibly/probably criminal damage to property. To get residential burglary you have to be able to prove there is intent to commit therein a theft. So until a person enters your residence and actually steals something where is the forcible felony? Better to err on the side of caution and be vigilant of the remainder of the statute with which I honestly believe the jury will more readily see as self defense.
(720 ILCS 5/7 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 2)
Sec. 7 2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
( b - In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)
Please read this carefully. One is justified in the use of force if 1) Entry is made OR 2) entry is attempted in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner AND he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another in the dwelling, OR 3) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commision of a felony in the dwelling.
The first and only criteria needed to be met to use force in a home invasion is "entry is made".
You are justified in the use of force to PREVENT entry if the attempt is made in the manner specified in the statute, and you reasonably believe such force is necessary to stop an assault against yourself or another. (Think someone yelling 'I'm gonna get you!' while kicking the door.)
You are justified in the use of force if you reasonably believe it's necessary to PREVENT the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
Notice a couple of things. If entry is made, you've nothing to prove except that the "aggressor" did not belong there.
The words "reasonable" and "prevent" are consistent throughout. So my question is, what reasonable person would believe that the "aggressor" had intentions other than those specified by the statute, and what means of prevention are even available once the threshold for justifiable use of force has been met, practically speaking?