A clear case of one man being the agressor and the older guy being the victim. The white guy didn't have to call to the old man and stop him and he sure as he** didn't have to attack him.
As for the old guys gun escalating the problem that is pure BS, since the young guy is the one who chose to escalate the argument, even after the old guy tried to leave.
Self defense and STG laws do NOT cause these situations, what they do is save someone's a** from being beaten to death by an idiot.
My point is that it doesn’t appear the old guy had an opportunity to retreat.
So the SYG law wouldn’t apply because after the young guy attacked him he had no safe way to retreat. Quite similar to the Zimmerman case, in fact. Can’t really retreat when someone is on top of you.
So the SYG law doesn’t apply because it would have equally been self-defense before SYG was passed.
That said, the “duty to retreat,” at least in principle goes WAY back in English common law. And common law often makes a great deal of common sense. Which is not to say the way modern judges have applied the “duty to retreat” always makes common sense.
Conservatives are supposed to conserve traditions, at least when they make sense. The duty to retreat, or at least the principle, is one of those traditions. Throwing centuries of common sense overboard may have some unintended consequences. Though IMO neither this case nor the Zimmerman case is one, since they are (probably) fully covered under older self-defense provisions.