He was accused of a crime, and I have focused on the crime and whether there was evidence to convict. Whether he showed good judgement or whether he is an exemplar of important virtues is a valuable discussion, perhaps. But it does not have much to do with whether he committed crimes. The prosecution did go for something that is first cousin to that, whether he was a provocateur. If they could have shown evidence for that I could be convinced of its legitimacy. The principle that you can't provoke and then claim self-defense certainly seems sound and worth keeping in law. But in the end they had evidence not even that convincing to people who wanted it to be true, and keeping evidence from the defense ticked off a lot of people who would have loved to have found a way to convict him.
Those who still have this idea about deciding whether he was a good person, or whether the rules of justice should change in response to this Tuesday's political fads, or what would have happened if he had played Scrabble instead * have a very strange view of justice, where we debate who is worthy of life and who is worthy of death, as opposed to looking at specific acts. Rather chilling. If you imagine the sc-fi short story that would be built off that, you can see it's a world you wouldn't much want to live in.
I don't even think that would be much slope to slip on. You'd already be pretty near the bottom.
*and if everyone had played Scrabble that night instead?