• NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Its grandstanding and posturing.

      But there is actually a good argument. Someone who the DOJ have decided wasn’t worth the hassle to properly investigate might still be identified and reported by a co-worker or neighbor. Which then begins to force the DOJ’s hand (they are still cops so they might ignore it but…). I personally think everyone who crowded outside the building deserves to be locked up, but I can see an argument that only people who entered the building or who actively caused damage should be charged.

      Because yes, facial recognition and DMV databases are already a thing. But, much like with a red light ticket, a decent lawyer can work wonders to argue out “a robot claims that I commit a crime”. Whereas having a human in the loop removes that gotcha. Hell, if my cousin is any indication, you don’t even need a lawyer to argue against a red light camera or an automated speed trap and just need to care enough to show up to the courthouse for a few hours.

      Also, regardless, this is indeed (attempted) obstruction of justice to protect insurrectionists.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or people think they recognize faces in the crowd, and we get a whole slew of Richard Jewells and Sunil Tripathis

    • niktemadur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      any little suspect from small time crime gets their face plastered all over local news

      Only if they’re black or hispanic. There’s a narrative to push, don’t you know.