Eric Holder, whose idiocy and blatant partisanship is making me reminiscent of Ashcroft & Reno and their ilk, apparently decided to lash out at the stand-your-ground laws in a speech to the NCAA, in reference to the death of Trayvon Martin. While we can be pretty sure which side Holder & the NCAA come down on in that case, how can they be upset about those laws? The justification for BOTH parties is based on that law! According to Martin's advocates, he stood his ground when confronted by a nosy profiler, and was merely defending himself, and his only crime was having the audacity to win a fist fight. In fact, stand-your-ground makes more sense for Martin than for Zimmerman, it being notoriously hard to retreat when a larger man is on top of you. Having the upper hand in the physical confrontation, on the other hand, is generally considered to be the appropriate position from which to call a peaceful halt to the proceedings. But under the principles protected by stand-your-ground, Martin was under no obligation to back off or kowtow to some guy who initiated the confrontation by accosting him.
Of course there are those who might contend that either party retreating (fleeing like a little bitch) would have been the better outcome and that Martin's death is a result of one or both men electing to stand his ground in a state which protected their legal rights to do so, but such people are little bitches whose possessions and women we can take at our leisure and their point of view need not be considered. In all seriousness though, stand-your-ground is the counter to things like Jim Crow. The opposite worked so well at Munich, after all... 
As much as I detest Eric Holder's reign as USAG, he's not far off that the apparent ease with which an average citizen in Florida can get both a gun and a concealed weapon permit is troubling when the law allows for you to "stand your ground" if/when you feel threatened. This creates a situation where any potential stranger can have a gun on their person and therefore are a potential threat to your right to exist peaceably. Once you feel threatened, you have no duty to retreat if you think that person will act violently towards you. As pointed out in the other thread, we already have pretty robust self-defense laws on the books, to many people putting SYG laws on top of them creates a more violent situation than before.
Where the NAACP (not the NCAA) comes into it: Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated and convicted in Florida, in many cases because of the assumption that most black people are automatically criminals first and humans a distant second. There is also the matter that, after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed, the usual pro-gun groups did not immediately jump to his defense and insist that he could have avoided being killed if he had only had a gun. This gives the impression that everyone but black people have a right to carry a gun for protection, something that SYG exacerbates in their (Holder and the NAACP) view of the situation.
