Because the Castle Doctrine, which creates a presumption in favor of the use of deadly force, does NOT apply here, Zimmerman must prove that he was entitled to use deadly force. (The burden is on Zimmerman. The State would not have to prove that he was NOT acting in self-defense.)

Do you have evidence for this statement? I haven’t researched this extensively, by my understanding is that Zimmerman can pretty much just say that he was acting in self-defense, and absent proof otherwise, he can use SYG to avoid prosecution. On what basis are you asserting that has the burden of proof that he acted in self-defense?

Also - I think you may have addressed this above in the discussion with Obdicut - but how do you get that there is some stipulation in the law that his following Martin negates his ability to claim that Martin threatened him with bodily harm - and because of no requirement that deadly force be a last resort - his use of deadly force in self-defense would be justified? I realize that politicians who are motivated by political expediency say that this case isn’t covered by SYG - but where’s the legal language that backs up that assertion?