You're correct about that. "Stand Your Ground" laws are generally created to remove the traditional common law and/or criminal code requirement that in order to use deadly force you had a 'duty of retreat' first if possible even in you are facing someone intending to commit serious bodily injury or death upon you.

The obvious problem with that requirement is that it sounds nice in theoretical abstract but in reality it to too hard to determine how, when under the fear and time pressure of such a threat, whether the person could rationally come up with a retreat plan. And too often, the requirement just became an unfair way to blame the victim for killing a violent felon intending to harm them by trying to armchair quarterback their decisions without the same compelling circumstances and with 20/20 hindsight.

Thus, the law seeks to place the fault of death squarely and fairly where it belongs--on the felon seeking to seriously harm or kill someone. The laws also seek to provide another deterrence incentive to violent lawbreakers to think twice before looking to commit such crimes.

Most of the criticism of the law centres upon whether the laws will make people too triggerhappy. However, the laws that I have seen do not authorise shooting people for ordinary simple assaults (a straight up bar fight without deadly weapons being pulled for example) and mere property damage and thievery where the perpetrators are not threatening the victim with serious bodily harm or death (they do impute home invasion with that intent to remove all doubts in those kinds of highly intrusive and potentially dangerous encounters).