In which way? How can we hold someone accountable if they are not guilty of committing a crime as they are written today? Yes, we can (and should) use this case to rewrite some of these laws around self-defense and being armed in a public place, but that was not the job of this jury. Their only job was to come up with a verdict based on current, not hypothetical, law.
Many great points here, Sean. Is it possible the media initially made the mistake of setting this trial up as such an example? A jury can't acquit/convict anyone based on emotion and/or historical baggage - they must come to a verdict based on evidence and knowledge of the law.