The Stand Your Ground aspect of Florida self-defense law really has no part in determining justification under these circumstances, since escape (even if desired) wasn't an immediately viable option for the shooter while he was sprawled on the ground. Therefore, it's correctly analyzed according to very standard self-defense concepts, i.e., was there reasonable fear on his part of imminent serious bodily injury or death from the person he shot. That's the only question. The Stand Your Ground component of Florida law is not at issue at all.
All Stand Your Ground does is say that you are no longer required to credibly assert that you had no effective and immediate means of escape in order to claim the legal defense of self-defense. In the past, you had to credibly assert that escape wasn't an immediate option. Now, with Stand Your Ground, you don't have to assert that in order to assert the legal defense of self-defense.
So, now that the Stand Your Ground aspect has been shown to be irrelevant in this case, we can analyze this under traditional self-defense law, where the only question is did the shooter reasonably believe that the man he shot presented an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to him.
That's the only question for the jury, since immediate escape was removed from Drejka's list of options once McGlockton knocked him off his feet to the pavement.
I think it could go either way under that analysis. It's a little ambiguous. A jury could see it either way. It's somewhere in the middle between justified and not.
