Just wondering....

[Feanor]

that ist's

Those things DO matter in trying to determine GZ's intent or what was in his mind when he acted. That's why the murder charge is going to the jury. There's just enough evidence of ill will, spite and/or hatred (an element of the crime) to let the jury decide.

As far as self-defense goes, that's a question for the jury too because the evidence isn't clear. There is some subtle "burden shifting" on an affirmative defense. The minority view is that the defendant carries the burden of proof on self-defense by a preponderance (more likely than not) of the evidence. The majority view is that evidence of self-defense must be examined along with all the evidence. IOW, the fact-finder is not supposed to examine the evidence of self-defense, if any, in a vacuum. Lack of self-defense is not an element of the crime of murder. Therefore, the state does not have to "disprove" it, but if there is evidence of self-defense, then the evidence taken as a whole must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a tricky and sometimes superficial legal analysis to reconcile the fact that lack of a legal "defense" to a crime is rarely an element of the crime (each element OF THE CRIME must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt) with the state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What if the jury finds it difficult to believe that GZ pulled his gun while his shoulders/arm pits were pinned by Martin? A wild tale inconsistent with common sense is not reasonable doubt.

The lesser-included charge of Manslaughter: On this charge, I can see the jury not giving much weight to the "self-defense" defense even if they think the defense precludes a guilty verdict on murder.

Since you are a lawyer I defer to your insight about "subtle burden shifting", even as I note that you say it's the minority view that the defendant carries the burden of proof.

However in Canada the burden of self-defence does generally shift to the defendant. I'm told the Stand-your-ground is derive from the so-called "castle doctrine", but here in Canada the castle doctrine isn't recognized, that is, it is always a Canadian's responsibility to retreat from, or evade, a potential attack even in his own home, ("castle"). Certainly in Canada if a neighbour watch volunteer shot anybody, however likely that the latter was an actual malfeasant, he would be charged with murder ipso facto. No volunteer would be issued a carry permit; if he was carrying a gun unlawfully, there would be strong presumption that he came to the situation with the intended to used it.

I'm pretty sure that if you shoot an intruder in your house in Canada, you will be charged with manslaughter (at least) and the burden will be yours to proof it was self-defence. Also it virtually certain that you will be charged with a firearms offence since gun storage requirements here make it virtually impossible to quickly access a gun to use for self-defence.