Let's presume for a moment that Zimmerman's account of the incident is correct. This seems more and more likely as evidence is dribbled out to the public, but I absolutely acknowledge that it might not be. Whether true or not, as a thought experiment let's presume that Zimmerman's account is 100% correct:
Why is it the press and the public at large still placing the blame on Zimmerman for Martin's death? Even those who apparently are taking his side are framing their argument around the idea that while it was Zimmerman's fault Martin is dead, that it was justified under the law. If Zimmerman's story is true, then Martin is the only one to blame for his death. Even if Zimmerman is a racist, if he profiled Martin, the fact he followed him etc. did not result in Martin's death. Martin choosing to attack Zimmerman with sufficient violence that he felt his life was in danger is the only reason that he is dead.
I've been followed by people before. I don't know if it was because they were considering robbing me, or they mistook me for someone else, etc. All I know is it creeped me out. I went to my car as directly and quickly as possible and got out of there. What I did *not* do is give them the slip, only to circle around and jump them, and then proceed to beat the crap out of them because they dared to follow me. The encounter and my apprehension ended when they were no longer following me.
Martin was not innocent. He was the criminal, and this criminal activity was what resulted in him being shot. Everyone getting all upset that if Zimmerman would only have stayed in the car, not played renta-cop, etc. should really be focusing on the only actual illegal behavior that occurred. According to Zimmerman's account, Martin had already given him the slip, and he was walking back to his car when he was attacked. The encounter could and should have ended there. If Martin was in fear of his safety while he was being followed, that fear ended when he gave Zimmerman the slip. Martin is the one that chose to re-engage the encounter and to escalate it to violence. If Martin would not have acted like a thug, and would not have snuck up on and attacked Zimmerman, then he would still be alive.
If Zimmerman's account is true, then Martin really sounds like a thug who resorted to violence as as a way to solve problems. It's unlikely that Zimmerman was the first person he ever attacked without just cause, and if he had succeeded in beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement, it is unlikely that Zimmerman would have been the last. Even if Martin was doing absolutely nothing wrong at all when Zimmerman started tailing him, how he reacted to the situation was what got him killed, and is also telling of what kind of person he may have been.
Once again, consider the above nothing more than a thought experiment from the position that Zimmerman's account is 100% correct. It might not be, and if that's the case then the analysis above would also not be true. I don't want to imply that I have formed any kind of concrete opinion on the incident. However, I do think that this is a side of the story that has been notably absent in the discussions, and that should be considered by those interested in it. Especially if Zimmerman's account does turn out to be true.