""In order to stay alive, Trayvon Martin should have _________.""
Ah, spelt, you talk of false equivalencies, and then want folks who refuse to take sides to answer a loaded question. Sorry, but I won't be dragged into that.
"For those claiming poor choices were made on both sides*"
Well now, since I'm one of them, let's talk a bit about your false equivalencies statement. Saying that each could have made different decisions, and if they had done so, the outcome would probably have been different, is not a false equivalency. I didn't say they were equally responsible for the tragedy. I didn't say their decisions were of equal weight. So, intended or not, you're misusing the term.
I'd reword your sentence to be less loaded, and answer you thus: if Trayvon Martin had called 911 when he was first being followed, he might (MIGHT) still be alive. If Trayvon Martin had continued running back to his father's house, he might still be alive (I can't believe Zimmerman could have kept up with him). I'm sure there are probably other decisions along the timeline of events that could have changed the course of what happened. And, obviously, Zimmerman could (and, in my opinion should) have made different decisions in the timeline of events.
This does not mean I blame Martin for his death - I don't. I blame Zimmerman for Martin's death.