You see, "stand your ground" laws have NOTHING to do with the Zimmerman/Martin situation. "Stand your ground" laws stand for the proposition that you have a right to proactively defend yourself in a defined area, with no requirement to retreat. Almost always, one's home is such an area (hence the alternative term "Castle Doctrine"). Sometimes, Texas being one example, you can defend yourself in your car (a mobile castle, if you will) or wherever you have a legal right to be at a particular point in time. This case involved no such thing - Zimmerman shot Martin (and his claim is backed up by witnesses and the police report) AFTER MARTIN PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED HIM and was threatening his life by repeatedly banging the back of his head against the sidewalk - much longer, and Zimmerman would have been unconscious and soon thereafter dead. The legality of Zimmerman's actions from the moment he was attacked until he pulled the trigger are pretty much beyond question in ANY jurisdiction in this country - he COULDN'T retreat, he was under ACTIVE, LIFE-THREATENING ATTACK. This was about as pure of case of self-defense as we're likely to have in the public eye for some time.
Bloomberg, or anyone else, arguing that this is because of "stand your ground/Castle Doctrine" laws is being disingenuous AT BEST - and, in all likelihood, is stating a flat-out lie with the intent of diminishing the rights of potential victims for the purpose of scoring political points. FUMB!
Which why he's now being charged with 2nd degree murder. Can't look crosswise at some people, if you do, and they attack you, it's your fault and you are not allowed to defend yourself.
"Stand Your Ground" is an unfortunate name for what used to be called "The Castle Doctrine." So I suppose now you'll be wanting to explain the Magna Carta to the mentally deficient pubic-scrool pass-alongs who make up the electorate, among whom young Trayvon would pass unnoticed.