"ThinkProgress" has second thoughts on no-retreat
"South Carolina Prosecutors Say Stand Your Ground Doesn't Apply To Victims Of Domestic Violence." Sounds like the argument is a variant of "the statute on its face says this, but we can't believe the legislature meant this to happen." Amusing to see prosecutors arguing that. It's usually argued by defense counsel, when the prosecutor comes up with a theory that the statute, if applied very literally, would turn a jaywalking charge into a ten year felony sentence.
UPDATE in light of comment: thanks for the citation. It looks to me as if §16-11-400 breaks down:
A. Presumption of reasonable fear if home is illegally entered.
B. Exceptions: (A) does not apply if other person is a lawful resident, etc.
C. A person who is in a place where he has a lawful right to be has no duty to retreat if attacked.
The article may have gotten it wrong (lots of reporters think (A), which is castle doctrine, is no-retreat. But if the defense is based on (C), that subsection has no exemption for the attacker being a co-resident. And I could see why the Legislature might want to create an exemption for A but not for C.