You seem to be making the inaccurate assumption that both the law and its enforcement are logically consistent. This might seem reasonable if you are a mathematician or engineer who is used to working with formal specifications and precise definitions. Unfortunately, the people who write and uphold the law are about as far from engineers as you can get.
Too true. Once two perfectly sound legal arguments are made without breaking any semantic rules of the legal system, but point to opposite conclusions, the law becomes a political process. Good lawyers complete the first phase and hope, truly excellent ones are adept politicos as well.
It takes years of legal training to stop thinking about the reality of the situation or what laymen would say "actually happened".
