Actually, he was found “not guilty”. No one is ever found in found innocent in a court of law. You can be guilty as hell and still found “not guilty”. This is simply a legal term that means the evidence was insufficient to remove all reasonable doubt from the eyes of the fact finder. Plenty of guilty people are found “not guilty”. With that said, I do not know enough about this case to opine on my perception of the officer’s guilt or innocence.
Don’t be a geek.
Pull the hairs out of your head and split those.
It's an important distinction. "Guilt" requires establishment of certain levels of "proof;" the burden of establishing that proof falls on the prosecution. Failure to do that means a verdict of "Not guilty."