(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.)
Part (1) need not be met if part (2) is.
Part (2) is about the least restrictive "castle doctrine" in the nation. After someone has illegally entered occupied dwelling, even a simple theft has become a felony! The statute is clear but will a jury afford you the clear plain meaning of the statute?
Example: Man breaks in door (or victim answers door and crook pushes past victim), confronted by victim, tells victim "I am taking that wide screen TV!" Victim - bang! bang! Bang! Criminal dead, commission of a felony has been prevented.
Is this situation covered under the conditions in section 7-2? Under 7-2(1) No, unless you are in fear for life or grave bodily harm. Under 7-2(2)? Yes, regardless of your fears.
There is danger of accepting the statute on its face without the benefit of real decisions involving similar circumstances to show how juries and courts interpret that same statute.
Judges and Justices in IL seem to define 'and' and 'or' variably as political winds blow...