I guess the bottom line is I don't believe it was justifiable to use deadly force. He initiated the confrontation by his actions. He may have not thrown the first punch but his actions lead to the altercation.
Unfortunately for your argument, following someone around, which causes that person to snap and then smash your head into the ground, does not eliminate your right to self defense. You are basically saying that because Zimmerman did something to make Martin mad, he can't defend himself. That is dumb.
Your argument is akin to saying if I call you an insult, and then you start smashing my head into the concrete, I can't stop you with a gun either, because I "initiated" the confrontation by saying something or doing something to piss you off. Sorry, it's not "initiating" a conflict unless you throw the first blow.
Zimmerman might have been wrong to profile Martin, but you want to make the murder conviction about the "wrong" of the profiling. That's not how it works if we believe the rest of the story.
Now maybe you don't believe that Martin threw the first punch, maybe you don't believe that Martin was on top of Zimmerman bashing his head in, etc, but if all those things were true, then Zimmerman can shoot him regardless of whether he pissed off Martin by following him.