When news of an arrest in Ohio County breaks, people may be quick to assign guilt to whomever it is reported that law enforcement officers have detained. They might assume that an arrest would never have been made if officials were not convinced that the target of their action was indeed guilty. Yet it should be remembered that even in cases where evidence may seem to support police action, judgment should be reserved until all of the facts (offered by both sides) can be heard. After all, elements viewed as evidence may still not speak to a person's intent.
Assigning criminal intent is often what prompts suspicion of an individual. This was evidenced in the recent arrest of a man in Williamson. A person alerted the police that the man had come from Ohio to allegedly retaliate against others for a shooting that occurred in Kentucky. When law enforcement authorities arrived to question the man, he was seated on the porch of a home. He reportedly was in possession of a weapon (as well as drug paraphernalia), and was later charged with obstruction and possessing a weapon.
A belief that one may be contemplating criminal activity does not equate to criminal activity itself. Furthermore, those charged with such activity should only be charged with offenses supported by evidence (as opposed to conjecture). An arrest based solely on perceived intent may be prejudicial, as the mere fact that one was arrested may be seen as damning to some. Thus, those facing criminal charges may want to secure the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney to ensure that their rights are respected.