What I'm saying is that from a legal perspective the person who they don't have probable cause to charge with anything is actually more innocent (Technically they are all innocent but I'm trying to show you the difference) then the person who goes to trial and is found not guilty. They are both not guilty in the laws eyes but a person who makes it all the way to trial at least has enough evidence against him to prove probable cause. If the prosecutor doesn't charge someone it's because they don't even have enough evidence to prove the probable cause to charge the person in the first place.
It's like the league suspending you for a murder that you were never charged with but determining that they can't suspend OJ Simpson because a Jury found him not guilty. There would clearly be more evidence against OJ committing a murder than you. But the burden of proof at a trial is much harder to meet than the low burden required to charge someone.
In the end the NFL can suspend someone found not guilty at a trial just as much as they can suspend someone who wasn't charged in a case. So it doesn't really matter. Either way the criminal justice system has come to a conclusion on Zeke's case. It's not that they just turned the other cheek. They completed their investigation and found no wrong doing. The NFL decided that it wasn't good enough and they did whatever they wanted.