Up until the confrontation, Martin was completely innocent. I don't see why we give the benefit of the doubt to the guy that lived but not the guy that got killed.
First of all, there is no way of knowing if Martin was or was not completely innocent before the confrontation. Maybe he was innocent, but SOMETHING made Zimmerman suspicious. Perhaps that something was a legitimately criminal action and NOT simply Martin's race.
Until Zimmerman decides to get his gun and start following Martin, no one was in danger.
We can't know this for sure either. Martin could have been putting people in danger with whatever he was doing that night.
And while Zimmerman could have chosen to stay in the car, Martin could have chosen not to start a fight with Zimmerman.
Zimmerman's actions were the proximate cause of the confrontation.
So why didn't Martin just continue about his business if he was "innocent" and doing nothing wrong? Who cares if Zimmerman is following him if he has nothing to hide?
Zimmerman can walk where he wants, even if the path he takes just happens to follow Martin's path.
If we can argue that Zimmerman should be able to stand his ground and defend himself, don't we also have to grant Martin that right?
What exactly was Martin defending himself against? Someone who happened to be walking the same direction he was?
We don't know. Rioting and protesting over this just doesn't seem rational...
No, it isn't rational. It's what idiots do when things don't go their way: "Let's get angry over one crime by committing several others!"