No, but when I began my original post which Knoell replied to with "technically" then I was indicating that I was not discussing the everyday dictionary definition of murder but rather the technical use of the term as the court and criminal justice system would. I never said anything about everyone needing to speak with common law definitions in mind, rather I was indicating that under the eyes of the law self defense is an admission that you comitted the murder but that you had a justification for it.
Secondly, if you go even further back in my posts you will see that I feel as if even though I don't like the verdict, I respect it because there was just not enough to find that he had an intent to kill Trayvon when he got out of his car. His intent to kill Trayvon only arose after he (reasonably or unreasonably) feared for his life. I'm not entirely sure if Florida recognizes imperfect self-defense (which amounts to a charge of manslaughter) but if they do and he had been charged accordingly they may have been able to find him guilty under those circumstances.
Whether or not I think someone is a piece of shit racist (which I think Zimmerman is) has nothing to do with whether I think there was sufficient factual evidence to find them guilty of murder. Here, he had a justification for the murder and the jury found in his favor. Like I've said before, there was a reason they only brought charges after significant political pressure because even though George Zimmerman is a piece of trash, there aren't enough facts to find him guilty of murder.
That's the entire problem with this case and many of the highly publicized cases, people can't separate their emotions and political idealogies from the outcome they think the case should have. Do I think Casey Anthony killed her daughter? Probably, but there wasn't enough evidence to support the finding. Same with OJ. People think that just because someone "looks guilty" it's enough for them to actually be guilty of the crime, that's not the case.