Why the application of Florida's SYG statute is so wrong

Listen to the voice of a well-respected retired Federal Judge, H. Lee Sarokin (in today's Huffington Post):

"Imagine this scenario: a man shoots and kills someone. He tells the police he was temporarily insane at the time. So they say "OK you can go home and take your gun with you," because they can't contradict his claim of insanity at the time of the killing. Ridiculous?...Am I missing something here? The only evidence of self-defense comes from the person who shot the victim. Doesn't he have a motive to lie?... What is undisputed is that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Whether or not there is a valid defense to that shooting is not a determination to be made by police -- particularly when based solely on the word of the shooter.

It would be unfair to reach any conclusions about Mr. Zimmerman's guilt at this stage, but it is likewise unfair to Trayvon Martin and his family to find Zimmerman innocent. It sounds as though Mr. Zimmerman admitted the shooting, said it was self-defense, and the police accepted his version and sent him home with the gun used in the shooting! Suppose there is evidence that a man committed a murder and he claims to have an alibi -- and "there is no evidence to contradict the alibi"? Does he go free or is he charged and required to present competent and believable evidence of the alibi. The shooting here is admitted. Charges must be filed and the defense has to be proven -- not accepted based solely upon the version of the perpetrator."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/george-zimmerman-self-defense_b_1374135.html

Having the STATE required to prove that the DEFENDANT was not reasonably in fear for his life is the most ridiculous shifting of the traditional burden of proof one could imagine. It only leads to misinterpretations, intentional and otherwise of the intent of the statute which may well permit wrongdoers to walk free. Talk about "legal technicalities".