When this case became prominent in the first place there were people who tried to make comparisons to two other situations where it was clear that SYG did not in fact apply. I have to work from memory regarding each case, but in both cases one thing was clear to me when reading their facts, both individuals were guilty of committing a crime. The difference is that in both cases the person was black – and that is no defence for their actions.
Let me deal with the woman first because she was the one who fired shots when her children were close by into the wall but at her former partner. She claimed stand your ground and that she was in fear of her life. HOWEVER, this woman did not have the gun on her person when she was allegedly in fear of her life. Instead she went to her car and fetched the gun, then came inside the house and fired it… That is a situation where SYG clearly does not apply. She intentionally fetched the weapon so that she could use it. Discharging a firearm in those circumstances (which really should have been the only charge for the woman) was still a criminal offence.
The next case is that of a situation that involved a neighbourhood dispute that started with the perpetrator having a go at the neighbourhood children, and the white man interfering on their behalf. The black man went back into his garage and fetched his gun, there was a fight and he shot the white man. This is also not an SYG situation because it cannot be reasonably argued that SYG was involved. I would think that it would be easy to convict on the grounds of at least manslaughter especially when the perpetrator had fetched his gun prior to the fight and then the shooting. I would think it could be argued for 2nd degree murder in the circumstances as I saw them described.
There was another case mentioned, but the circumstances were so different from that of the Zimmerman case that it simply has no relevance at all, and those who tried to use the case simply show their own desperation and willingness to distract.