Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act.
Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a defamation claim.
I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified. I don't know if that is because they didn't sign a consent form from the show (or if the show even needed that), or what, but a lot of faces we're definitely censored.
Yup. Faces of suspects were often blurred. Victim/witnesses would also have their faces blurred sometimes, I assume they were offered some compensation in exchange for showing their face.
I'm sure the attorneys at Ring have already been through this discussion to decide whether similar actions were warranted, and concluded otherwise.
Also, a big difference between COPS and the instant case is that in the TV shows, law enforcement have already identified the suspect, while here, the suspect is at large. I think it would be difficult to convince a court that you were the intentional target of defamation when the defendant hasn't identified you yet.
While pulling on the handle of a locked car door and then moving on is certainly shady, I expect it's not a criminal act, right?