Not an attorney. But it seems to me in a case like this truth, as in libel and slander, would be an absolute defense.
Catching all these on camera and yet not apprehending the responsible parties. Why?
The responses on Rowe’s page include a lawyer who said exactly what you said. Truth is an absolute defense. No lawyer would take the case unless he was paid upfront and then he would know that’s all he’s going to get.
Most lawyers will never take on a slander/libel suit because in the vast majority of cases it's almost impossible to document any financial harm that the "victim" has suffered.
In the case of this story, I'm not even sure that the owner of the liquor store posted the guy's name -- which makes a libel suit much more difficult. This is because the "victim" of the libel would first have to prove that HE is the one in the photo ... and the process of proving that he was the guy in the photo will do more to give him negative public exposure than the original photo did.