It has zero to do with what the Judge "reasonably believes" and never ever does.

The Judge ruled that the prosecution didn't prove that the defendant knowingly entered without permission, nor did they prove the accused 'riled the crowd up', which is apparently is the tiny bar for the disorderly conduct charge.

Either this guy was innocent, or the prosecution failed to prove he was guilty. It is a shameful abuse and attack of our legal system, to imply this had anything to do with the Judge's beliefs.

A judge ruling based on their beliefs would be an activist judge, violating their Constitutional duties.