this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
442 points (97.8% liked)

Not The Onion

11929 readers
1 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 53 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Worse, DOJ certainly had them before Congress so it makes no sense.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

This is the dumbest part about this whole thing. It's just grandstanding.

Edit: He's already recanted it. Instead saying they are blurring to protect their identities from the public.

Meanwhile, any little suspect from small time crime gets their face plastered all over local news anyways.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

It’s theater for their deep state struggle fundraising. Gotta shake down the marks for the cash. You think he’s got a sugar daddy? He’s not a Supreme Court justice………