Stand your Ground laws - 2 different issues here

I'm a bit confused about the controversy over Stand your Ground laws. It seems to me that there are two separate issues at play:

1. Scope of Self Defense:
Whether or not you have a duty to retreat before using deadly force.


2. Burden of Proof:
Is self defense still an affirmative defense (must be proven in court by defendant after admission to killing in order to escape guilt), or does the burden of shift to the prosecutors to prove that there was no self defense?


From the reporting, it sounds like FL's law changed both the scope and the burden of proof. No more duty to retreat, and prosecutors have to prove non-self-defense. What about the other states - do they just eliminate the duty to retreat, or do they switch the burden of proof too? I think the duty to retreat in and of itself is something reasonable people can argue, but switching the burden of proof on self defense is fucking insanity.


PS: I think Zimmerman gets convicted even with FL's law given all the evidence that he stalked and chased Trayvon Martin.