Point well taken, but at the same time, we have to wonder what the alternative here was. Personally, when I was watching that day, I was thinking "Why are they

Point well taken, but at the same time, we have to wonder what the alternative here was. Personally, when I was watching that day, I was thinking "Why are they letting all these people go? Why aren't they mass arresting them there on the spot? Won't it be hard to later go back and arrest these people after the fact? Arresting them on the spot is proof they committed a crime, so where are the busses and the handcuff?" I was later told by a friend in law enforcement that doing such a thing at the scale of 1/6 is an extreme safety hazard for officers, and increases the likelihood of a bloodbath for all involved. So what are the choices? 1) Arrest everyone on the spot, risk a bloodbath 2) Let everyone go and send the message that insurrection is okay, and that if you try this again next election, you'll have a low chance of getting arrested. The only thing worse than a failed insurrection is letting failed insurrectionists have a second go with the benefit of experience. 3) Let everyone go and get creative with technology. It avoids a bloodbath, helps enforce the law, and makes clear that insurrection is not to be tolerated. Maybe this diminishes our civil rights a bit, but the constitutional order is still intact (we're not tossing out all laws to get the devil. Makes for a good moment in a play but no one is arguing for that here), and you're free to use that order to bolster civil rights, as so many have done in the past. I think this is a good compromise. Then we can try to prevent insurrections before they happen, instead of using geofencing to arrest those who already perpetrated one.