United States law requires not just that the state prove that Ken Ward turned a valve, but that the state prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what the law requires. It looks like the state had no evidence of whether Ken's intent was civic intent or not.
A precedent was set in an English court case, Penn v. Crown. The Crown (the English courts, in the King's name) charged William Penn, the Quaker founder of Pennsylvania, with "tumultuous and riotous assembly". In fact Penn had sat rather motionless with other Quakers in the town square and had meditated. The jury reported to the judge that he was only guilty of "assembly". The judge then demanded a verdict on the "tumultuous and riotous" part, and the jury said he was innocent of being tumultuous and riotous. Whereupon, this being England, the judge locked up the jury without beer. Another court said that the judge didn't have the authority to compel a guilty verdict out of his jury. By the way, they raised a statue to this case.
We ought to convince millions of prospective jurors that they must go by their hearts in discerning the "criminal intent" part of any law. If the law demands proof of criminal intent and no such proof whatsoever is forthcoming from the state, then the defendant must be found innocent.
In any case, I've met Ken and I congratulate him. I've also met Ken's father, who is probably still convinced that I'm the strangest person that he's ever met in his life, but that's another story.