[Alberta's Child]

Most of the elements above miss that the defendant only has to show his subjective belief was reasonable, not that it was objectively true.

This is probably the source of much disagreement on this subject — including on this thread. The item I highlighted here explains why the defense effectively takes on a “burden on proof” in a case where an affirmative defense is presented, even if the law doesn’t say so explicitly. This also explains why Kyle testified in his own defense even though that is almost always not a good idea.

Unlike an ordinary murder case where the key facts may be in dispute, the defense can’t just rest on a reasonable doubt about those facts (e.g., the defendants has an alibi, the defendant wasn’t at the scene of the crime, the perpetrator fit someone else’s description, etc.), the defense has to establish a narrative about the defendant's state of mind that really can’t be left as an open question in the minds of the jury.

[marktwain]

I think we are saying the same thing.

It is the defendant's state of mind which is important, within limits. Not the objective facts.

If the defendant reasonably believed self defense was necessary, that meets the requirement (at least one of the requirements)