he heard there was a protest, got in his car, drove to a far-away community, got the gun that day, and was at the protest that night. That's misinformation, and what seems to be a majority of people believe that that is what happened.

Care to explain which part of this is inaccurate? Because based on your first two paragraphs, the only thing that is inaccurate is he "drove to a far-away community". Even with that, I suspect it would be more accurate to say "he drove to another community", or something to that effect. He still went to a place he didn't live -- in another state -- to attend a protest with a rifle.

Again, I don't care about the legal implications of any of this, as the he has already been acquitted. Just because him going to another community and state wasn't relevant in the trial, it doesn't mean we can't bring it up in conversation.