This is self defense specifically because of no retreat laws.
That is not accurate at all. The no retreat laws only make it so that by the letter of the law, this is self defense regardless of if we find out later that the guy was just asking for directions or something, and that she could have easily avoided the situation by just getting in her car and driving off.
Wrong. Even with SYG, you still have to have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. SYG simply qualifies the standard self-defense doctrine to explain that if you have such a reasonable fear, you don't have to try to retreat before defending yourself.
And this case, and Nuts' posts, perfectly demonstrate why SYG laws are a good thing. Self defense is already murky enough with the "reasonable fear." At least with SYG, you don't have to worry about some asshat on a jury later whining about "well, I really think if
I was in that situation, I would have had time to drive away...." This isn't Europe. In this country, we place a higher value on self-reliance, which includes self-defense.