Going only by the article linked, the words "entice him to enter the property" appear to be taken from the court papers filed by the prosecution. The prosecution obviously wants to frame the narrative in a manner most favourable to their position, so it is not surprising that a phrase like this would appear. Their version, and the defendant's motives in leaving the gate open, would be tested at trial.
In absence of this testing it is perhaps not wise to state the defendant enticed the victim into his property as if it were a matter of fact.
Self defence has a partially subjective test. It is the situation as the person raising the defence perceived it which is important. If the defendant can show he felt in imminent fear for his personal safety he satisfies the first part of the test. He then has to show that his response was objectively reasonable.
In this case the defendant was faced with an aggressor who was known to be proficient in martial arts. The victim also claimed to have a gun of his own (albeit not on his person at the time) the threat of which could, arguably, increase any fear of harm he felt. The aggressor threatened him with physical violence and the fact the verbal confrontation was protracted and heated only adds to this potential perceived threat.
In other words it is not unreasonable to assume that the defendant did in fact have enough fear, given the circumstances, to satisfy the first part of the test.
It is then a question as to whether his response was reasonable.
Under classic common law there was a duty to escape if it was possible. Castle doctrine removes that duty when on your own property, and as we all know "stand your ground" makes it all but moot.
With no duty to retreat, and being in fear for his personal safety, it seems that the shooting may well have been, at least legally, justified. Even without "stand your ground" it is possible castle doctrine still applies as he was on his own property. I don't know the case law which sets out the doctrine's limits.
That said I do believe "stand your ground" is a step too far. I'm fine with castle doctrine but stating that you never have to try to escape does seem to bring out the worst in people. In situations where things happen so fast you can't even look for a way to escape, "stand your ground" is unnecessary. If there is a situation where you could run, but were afraid you would not be able to escape, you can pre-emptively attack. But with "stand your ground" you don't even have to consider escape. You can, seemingly, attack at will.
And in a country with a significantly armed populus, that is dangerous.
