I disagree that if he was arrested at this point, it would not violate his due process rights.
Se Below, from wiki:
[edit]
Main article: Due Process Clause
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[17] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
If the rumors are correct about the forensics backing his story, then it would be a violation of his due process if he were arrested at this point.
The only 'evidence' that Crump and the family keep pointing to are the various witnesses who say his hands were up. But they only saw the end of the incident, and not the start. So they missed the context and the initial attack. jmo
Ok, let me restate it...based only on the evidence that we are aware of as fact, there would be no due process concerns with an arrest. If they have other evidence that negates guilt, it could obviously change that story. You may disagree with the witness statements but we don't have much more known evidence at this point beyond the witness statements, some video after the fact at the scene and I suppose the robbery video. Going only off of what we know, I don't think it comes any where even remotely close to a due process violation. I just don't think it's necessary at this point and they obviously likely do have other evidence that does negate guilt.