A Cook County judge on Thursday acquitted two Chicago police officers accused of shooting an unarmed man last summer in Pilsen and then lying about how it happened.

Judge Lawrence Flood ruled the officers were within their rights to protect themselves when they opened fire, wounding Miguel Medina twice on July 22 last year.

“The officers were not the aggressors,” Flood said in his ruling from his bench on the fifth floor of the Leighton Criminal Courthouse. “It’s Medina and [a juvenile] who approached [the officers’] vehicle.”

The audience in the gallery of the courtroom, packed with supporters, officers and police union officials, erupted in applause at the verdict and had to be quieted by a courtroom deputy.

As supporters left the courthouse, a man shouted “Kim Foxx” and flashed two thumbs down to a row of television cameras, referring to the state’s attorney.

Neither Medina nor his family appeared to be present.

Flood acknowledged that neither officer could have known that Medina and the others in his group had been partying for two days or that they had been brandishing a Smith and Wesson handgun on social media.

But, the judge said, given the “appearance and actions” of the group as they walked down the street, it was reasonable for police to stop to investigate them.

Within moments of reversing their unmarked police car, both officers opened fire at Medina, who had raised one hand as he approached the car. Medina testified he was showing he wasn’t a threat to them while holding a bottle of wine and a cellphone.

The officers then exchanged gunfire with a juvenile in the group who had started to run away. Both officers falsely claimed they had been fired on first.

But surveillance video contradicted the officers’ statements, and State’s Attorney Kim Foxx announced two months later that her office would charge both officers with aggravated battery, aggravated assault and official misconduct. 

In closing arguments Wednesday, defense attorney James McKay said the charges were the result of “a political agenda that flies in the face of law enforcement.” He said he was sorry for the two young prosecutors “tasked to walk this dog of a case” that he said never should have made it into a criminal courtroom. 

McKay and co-counsel Tim Grace repeatedly referred to Medina as a “gangbanger” and “a liar,” and the juvenile in the group as a “cockroach.”

Grace said video of Medina and the juvenile standing near the officers’ car showed they were about to commit “a coordinated ambush of the officers, a surprise attack,” even though the juvenile appeared to turn and run away before the first shots were fired by the officers.

McKay asked the judge to overlook the fact that both officers claimed they were fired upon first in their official reports.

“What do you think these men are feeling when these stupid reports are filled out?” McKay yelled theatrically in the courtroom, calling the reports “garbage.”

But none of that matters, both defense attorneys contended, stressing the law allowed the officers to use deadly force if they reasonably felt threatened, without being judged with the benefit of hindsight.

“They do not have to wait until they are fired upon,” Grace said. 

But prosecutors noted that neither officer had seen social media videos showing the gun or the partying. “You don’t get to go back and justify an unjustified shooting by saying at least police shot a bad guy,” Assistant State’s Attorney Tom Fryska argued. 

If the officers were so concerned that Medina was an armed threat, the prosecutors asked, why didn’t the surveillance video show either of them approaching Medina afterward to search for the weapon. 

They knew “he didn’t have one,” Fryska said. 

Medina testified on the first day of the trial last week, but both officers declined to take the stand in their defense.

Prosecutors put on a single witness Wednesday, a man whose apartment on 18th Street overlooked the scene of the shooting and who was enjoying a morning cup of coffee when the gunfire broke out.

The witness said he rendered aid to Medina before paramedics arrived, using skills he had learned at a wilderness medicine class he took through an employer. 

On cross-examination, McKay asked the witness if he had told detectives that “you hate what the police stand for.”

“Correct,” the man replied.

The judge would not allow him to answer a follow-up question from prosecutors about his negative encounters with police that led him to that opinion. 

The defense called a city employee who was operating a street sweeper on 18th Street when the shooting happened.

The employee said he had seen Medina, who was wearing a white hoodie, holding a gun before the shooting. But he couldn’t recall, when pressed by prosecutors, on why he had given a different description of the person holding the gun to detectives the day after the shooting “when his memory was fresh.”