This is an interesting article as far as its composition. The reporter was very careful to craft it so it sounds neutral (largely by being neutral in the beginning and end); however, the weight of time given to ADA Lavoie and his thoughts on the trial in the meat of the article gives lie to its neutrality. Virtually everything said in relation to the trial and verdict implies that it was the wrong verdict because virtually all of it is told from Lavie's POV, and very little heed is paid to the fact that the defendant really was a good guy and his assailants really were bad guys; it's spun to imply that that's what the defense wanted everyone to believe.
I sincerely wish police officers would stop gauging their success on how many of their arrrests result in convictions. Their job is not to protect and serve (not anymore), and it is not to get convictions. Their job is to enforce the law, and in doing so investigate possible crime. So they spent $6,000 in man-hours to discover it wasn't a crime. As a taxpayer I see no difference between that and paying a building inspector to go over every inch of the houseand then tell me there's nothing wrong withit. The only way that could ever be thought of as a bad thing is if you can tell the house is about to collapse even if you don't know anything about civil engineering. The equivalent case for the police would be the gunman in a drive-by shooting being acquitted of self-defense. This situation was nothing like that; a man walking down the road, minding his business, was accosted and pursued by two drunks who were provoking him to shoot them, and could reasonably have been in fear for his life (there quite simply is no telling what a person who admitted in court that heWANTEDto get shot was capable of doing to get his way).