So ... if the McGlockton car had a gun in it's glove compartment (with appropriate permits), based on this law, the woman would have been under rights to pull it out and start firing shots and Drejka, right?
Certainly after watching her man get shot in the chest.
But arguably before that, if she felt 'threatened' by the strange creep who came up to the car screaming at her? Couldn't she be "reasonably" justified in feeling threatened for her life? After all, who knows if such a crazy man might have a gun in his pocket?
Are we building toward a society where everyone should be packing heat and bullets should be just let fly? What if an innocent bystander gets hit by a stray bullet fired by someone who is "standing their ground"?
When does this madness stop?
The above is all hypothetical, of course.
On the particulars of the case, different commenters seem to argue over whether McGlockton was already stepping back before Drejka pulled out the gun. But it's very clear that he clearly steps backward before the trigger was pulled. At that point, I don't think you can legitimately argue that "using or threatening to use (deadly) force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself". All he had to do was keep the gun pointed at McGlockton and walk away.
But instead he chose to pull that trigger.
If we are going to argue that in the "heat of the moment" he couldn't be expected to recognize that simply holding the gun gave him enough power to control the situation and walk away without firing it, then that's an argument that the creep should never, ever have been allowed to have that gun in the first place. And probably why the vast, vast majority of folks should never, ever carry a gun.