They are applying spin to fit their narrative.

This is the ACLU; they are both biased and good at spin.

(Which is not to say they are quacks, but know what you are dealing with)

If the article is to be believed, it was understood among the men that the truck was for everyone to use, and it was his intention to return the truck as they always did. If that was the case, I don't see how it meets the common definition of theft. (It may not be the case. The fact that he got convicted seems to fly in the face of the situation they describe.)