I wasn't there, I didn't attend the trial, and my only information about the events comes from posts of people with a political dog in the fight. So I don't have an opinion about whether his actions meet the legal standard for a crime or not. I am not on the jury and thus there is no reason for me to expend the effort necessary to determine whether I think the prosecution proved their case or not.
People expressing opinions about whether he should be found guilty or not guilty likely have similar levels of knowledge about the case. In other words, they're expressing a strong opinion without having the requisite background to form the opinion.
Based on the posts I read during the trial, the prosecution totally botched the case and it was a slam dunk for the defense. Yet somehow the jury has been deliberating for two days. This suggests to me that a bunch of my friends have been watching curated media coverage and believing whatever they want. Two days of jury deliberations suggests to me they have some things about which they need to deliberate.
A 17 year old kid obviously shouldn't be showing up to a riot with a weapon. That's not the same thing as claiming he is guilty of a crime, but people who are calling him a hero are absolutely crazy and probably have some moral deficiencies.