The op's point was the george was a criminal based on the charges in that case. The op also, apparently, was based on the belief that misdemeanor charges were the end of the matter and either didn't know, or didn't appreciate the significance of, the dismissal of the charges entirely. Which is the same as if they had never been brought. So yes, George is not a "criminal" based on that case.
And, afaik, George always maintained that he did not commit a crime.
If the op had just been something like "imo, George committed a crime against the undercover police officer" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it wasn't. It was based on the erroneous "fact" of a non-existent misdemeanor conviction.jmo