It's going to come down to how that law is worded.
More precisely, it's going to come down to how the jurors understand the law, and whether they decide to faithfully follow it. The judge and the attorneys will try their best to educate the jurors on the law, but that only goes so far. It is quite possible that the jury may just "split the baby" and acquit on murder but convict on manslaughter, which is one reason why prosecutors often overcharge.
And just FYI, here are the laws at issue:
1. Second Degree Murder: There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a
depraved mind without regard for human life. (This is where the state's allegations that GZ was a racist POS come into play, because otherwise it's gonna be really hard to prove the "depraved mind" part).
2. Manslaughter: An act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person. (This one is easy. GZ is guilty unless he acted in self defense. There is no dispute that he killed TM).
3. Self Defense: There are a number of statutes that come into play here, but ultimately it will come down to whether GZ
reasonably believed that the force was
necessary to prevent imminent great bodily harm or death to himself or another. (This is what the case really boils down to.)
4. Burden of Proof: The state must prove Nos. 1 or 2,
AND disprove No. 3, "beyond a reasonable doubt."
