What the law in Missouri says is that deadly force is not permitted unless the person against whom it is used has entered an occupied dwelling (or automobile) "without license". That seems a lot less restrictive than the following:
And that is almost exactly how the Missouri law was explained in my State-designed CCW class, and it seems most reasonable to me. The operative words would seem to be to stop the threat. Regarding the statement "once the threat is gone, I must cease and desist," I was told that if the intruder attempts to leave I may not shoot. That is consistent, I think, with Garner v. Tennessee, which of course takes precedence over any state law. But it's not the way the law would seem to read, taken by itself. As Fiddletown and the Arizona attorney Michael Anthony have explained, laws must be interpreted within the context of other statutes, case law, and the Constitution. And that was my point.
So--I interpret what I am permitted to do the way I understand your explanation of the South Carolina law, and not the way one might interpret the law out of context and using lay dictionary definitions.
I imagine that the absence of the term "forcibly" in the Missouri law was intentional, and was intended to remove from the resident any obligation to present evidence that the entry was, for example, not made by means of stealth, but that's just lay speculation.
