You're right, it doesn't change the outcome of the trial at all. After all, I wasn't talking about the outcome of the trial, or the media coverage. It is somewhat relevant to "other aspects of the case", however, as my point illustrates how following the trial and agreeing with the outcome doesn't make one immune from being swayed by emotion and making judgments not supported by evidence ("He didn't suffer life threatening injuries because he shot Martin before they could occur").
Is it a technicality? Sure, but I remember someone saying "being technically correct is the best kind of correct to be", or something along those lines. And, to be fair, I haven't been "hammering" anything. My point was consistently misinterpreted and I simply responded with patience and civility, clarifying my point of view, as often as people kept arguing points that were not relevant and need not have be argued. If people weren't so darned eager to paint me as being "wrong" just for the sake of saying I'm "wrong", this conversation would never have gone past 4 posts. Famm gets it, Fanaskin gets it, and now Cad the lawyer gets it. It might not mean much to you, but after being treated like a mouth-breathing short bus reject by some idiot who has yet to grasp my simple point, it means something to me.
