It seems open and shut from the info presented. I'm no lawyer, but who was the initial aggressor would not seem to matter. Drejka got pushed to the ground, then shot the guy who pushed him as he walked away. The only way he is not guilty of at least manslaughter, is if he can convince the jury the guy he shot still posed a threat to "a reasonable man". IOW would a reasonable man believe his life was still being threatened by the guy who pushed him to the ground and then was walking away from him. It wouldn't seem to me that the Stand Your Ground law would have much to do with it.
It's troubling though, that the article started off with "shot a BLACK man" and then later went on about how colored folks thought the Stand Your Ground Law represented a threat to THEM. How would a law (I'm assuming here) that didn't list anything about a person's race, favor one race over another UNLESS ONE RACE COMMITTED THE PREPONDERANCE OF DEADLY ASSAULTS/MURDERS? In that case, it would seem to favor the victim over the criminal, which I don't have a problem with.
But...showing such bias in the article makes one wonder if the facts are presented truthfully in the first place.
So on the surface, if the facts are right, it looks like the guy shot the other guy in a fit of rage after being "attacked". Since he wasn't harmed much, it's hard to work up much sympathy for him.
