Starting from the next part of line 27, which is where the previous poster stopped his paste. The next part seems to define when you presume this reasonable fear.

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON WHEN USING PHYSICAL FORCE THAT IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM TO ANOTHER IF:

(a) THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED WAS IN THE PROCESS OF UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERING, OR HAD UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERED, THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, OR IF THAT PERSON HAD UNLAWFULLY REMOVED, OR WAS ATTEMPTING TO UNLAWFULLY REMOVE, ANOTHER PERSON AGAINST THAT PERSON'S WILL FROM THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE; AND

(b) THE OCCUPANT KNEW OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ACT WAS OCCURRING.

My reading of the above: part (a) says they are in the process of coming in, or already there. OR they try and take someone away. Two seperate things. No need to get into the bad guy's means, opportunity, jeopardy, disparity of size, whatever. AND (b) you know they aren't supposed to be there or doing that.

Next is 2.5 which sets out some exceptions, which don't seem too bad as long as "unlawful activity" isn't taken to extremes (copyright violation :roll: )


Thoughts? It seems like an improvement