Oh, okay. I got ya'. But do you believe it is possible (given the examples I have cited above), that there may be probable cause to arrest someone in a given case, but not enough to obtain a conviction, so LE delays the arrest?
See, I think they do have probable cause to arrest, which is a much easier standard of proof to show, than beyond a reasonable doubt, which I don't think they have yet. I mean, all one needs for probable cause, for example, is: "I saw the subject vehicle fail to put on their indicator light when making a turn. Upon pulling them over, I saw that the subject matched the description of an armed robbery suspect. So, I arrested him." In that case, "matching the description" could mean the subject is black, like the suspect, they have a similar build and were both wearing similar baseball caps. This happens ALL the time, especially when the subject is a minority, unfortunately. To me what a cop in that situation had to show to make that arrest is not much at all and would be likely primarily based on his own biases. Nevertheless, situations like that have repeatedly proved to be enough for an arrest but certainly not for a conviction.
So what I'm saying is it would probably not take much to show probable cause in Kyron's case to arrest TH, but that's a far cry from being enough to take it to trial. Please remember, there are different standards of proof that need to be met in different scenarios and those standards are vastly different when it comes to what you need to show to arrest and what you need to show to convict. IMO, that's why DAs fail to give the green light for an arrest, for what sometimes seems like long periods, in various cases.
