If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7592601


(KNBC 4 Los Angeles)   Thank you Citizen for your information that lead to the location of Christopher Dorner. We apprec......pardon? What? The one million dollar reward? Welllllllllllllllllllll about that   (nbclosangeles.com) divider line 88
    More: Obvious, Christopher Dorner, psychiatrists, NBC4 News, Big Bear, NBCLA  
•       •       •

3979 clicks; Favorite

88 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 03:53:43 PM

meanmutton: Tigger: OregonVet: Tigger: I wasn't suggesting they shouldn't have let him on fire, I'm suggesting that they are disingenuous shiatbags for weaselling out of the deal on a technicality.

How was that a technicality?

You know the answer. Stop it.

Not actually knowing the guy's location counts as a technicality?

I'm with OV on this one.  Sounds like they didn't really turn him in and don't deserve the reward on those grounds.


They don't have to turn him in - they provided the evidence that led to the cops finding him. Had they not lit him on fire he would have been arrested and convicted.

Their specific counter argument was "he wasn't arrested and convicted". The reason for that? He was on fire. It's absolutely clear that the intent of the reward is "help us catch bad guy" - they did help them catch bad guy - they should get the reward.
 
2013-03-26 03:53:47 PM

K3rmy: "The Running Man" by Stephen King touches upon this oh so slightly.  Money from those in power will cause the down-trodden to betray their brother and thus betray their cause.  It was the way the Games worked.  It kept the dregs entertained and salivating.

Too bad the book could never be literally translated to movie form today.


Well, the ending (flying a plane into a skyscraper) sure wouldn't go over too well today...
 
2013-03-26 03:53:59 PM

muck4doo: Am I the only person who sees something wrong with the government offering rewards for information that leads to arrest AND conviction?


Not at all however that's a discussion for a different generation.

It takes generations for any meaningful change to come about, and the idea that offering a reward for the Arrest AND Conviction is inherently bad is something that will take many generations before it's even brought up in any meaningful manner or at all.

Remember, we're just now getting around to letting 9 people decide whether or not a whole section of the United States Populace will be able to obtain Marriage Equality, how long do you think it'll take before we address something as serious as our broken and hilariously inept and harmful criminal justice system.

Alcohol and drugs, best way to numb yourself to the joke that is the human species.
 
2013-03-26 03:55:16 PM

Snarfangel: Quantum Apostrophe: Next time we should get criminals to dress as cats and let the Fark tough guys handle it.

And how are you going to get criminals to drink antifreeze, Mr. Smartypants?


Just do what the French do and put it in wine.
 
2013-03-26 03:55:19 PM
Solution: pay the reward in cash.  1/2 mile down the road, set up a police roadblock and search their vehicle.  Confiscate the cash, "lose" the receipt, and make them prove it isn't from drugs:  "State of California vs. $900,000".
 
2013-03-26 03:55:41 PM

Snarfangel: Quantum Apostrophe: Next time we should get criminals to dress as cats and let the Fark tough guys handle it.

And how are you going to get criminals to drink antifreeze, Mr. Smartypants?


3D printers, duh.
 
2013-03-26 03:56:04 PM

No Such Agency: Solution: pay the reward in cash.  1/2 mile down the road, set up a police roadblock and search their vehicle.  Confiscate the cash, "lose" the receipt, and make them prove it isn't from drugs:  "State of California vs. $900,000".


Book it, done.
 
2013-03-26 03:56:04 PM

Walker: This is why you shouldn't help the police.


This general statement has grown so old it's pathetic.
Was that your car that got sideswiped in a hit and run?  Sorry, I didn't notice the model or color of the car which drove off.
There's an amber alert identifying the vehicle in front of me?  Too bad I'm low on cell phone minutes.
Your house was broken into while you were on vacation?  Must've been those kids I spotted in your driveway at 2 AM.
Smoke coming out of your house?  hmmm...the fire department is another first-responder, better play it safe and go back to watching Dr. Who.

Be wary of the fuzz?  You bet, but if there's a shooting suspect around I'll drop dime and, if one's offered, cross my fingers for the reward.
 
2013-03-26 03:56:37 PM

timujin: I seem to recall that this was the prediction in the original Fark thread on the reward.  That the response would be "Thanks for the report citizen, but the $1M won't be awarded to you because Dorner wasn't arrested and convicted."


==================

I started that thread.  A big man would never say, "I told you so.",  but I'm a petty, little man.

I TOLD YOU SO.
 
2013-03-26 03:56:41 PM
PS - welcome to Fark
 
2013-03-26 03:56:56 PM

rkiller1: Walker: This is why you shouldn't help the police.

THIS


Seconded.

LemSkroob: cops are scumbags. better off shooting one than asking one for help.


This also.

ha-ha-guy: rkiller1: Walker: This is why you shouldn't help the police.

THIS

Well that and if you reported Chocolate Rambo being in your area, the dumb farks were more likely to swarm in and kill the garbage men than help you.


That's why they couldn't find a body. He melted from the heat of being lit up!
 
2013-03-26 03:57:01 PM
Of course they won't get paid- that was just a ploy to get people who would otherwise sympathise with him to turn him in.
 
2013-03-26 03:57:46 PM
The shooting at a truck 102 times (and hitting only about 20 times), the cronyism, and now the backing out of the reward all goes to proving the ineptitude that Dorner pointed out.

The guy might be dead, but his points live a life of their own.
 
2013-03-26 03:58:39 PM

dictyboy: K3rmy: "The Running Man" by Stephen King touches upon this oh so slightly.  Money from those in power will cause the down-trodden to betray their brother and thus betray their cause.  It was the way the Games worked.  It kept the dregs entertained and salivating.

Too bad the book could never be literally translated to movie form today.

Well, the ending (flying a plane into a skyscraper) sure wouldn't go over too well today...


Plus, the HERO does it.
 
2013-03-26 03:59:31 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Technically, these people didn't turn in information to get him arrested; they turned in information to report crimes committed against them.

Unless, of course, people are going to argue they wouldn't have reported the crimes they were victims of if they didn't think they would get an award.


This.

I think it was a bit of a technicality that they were up for a reward anyway. Best thing here would be to pay up but maybe a reduced amount, maybe something like 1/3 of the original offering.

And if you're going to offer a reward, why don't you take out one of those insurance policies like they do for hole-in-one contests or whatever so that in the event of a technicality, it would be the insurance company that looks like the jerks and not your government.
 
2013-03-26 04:00:06 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Next time we should get criminals to dress as cats and let the Fark tough guys handle it.


Okay, that was funny.
 
2013-03-26 04:00:17 PM
This whole situation has really changed my opinion of cops...

That first night, I got pulled over by some random CHP in front of my house. They light up their floodlights and cautiously creep up to my truck. I hear one of them yell CLEAR! and then get shouted at for like 20 minutes "ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME?!" "No Porky, I live in that house right there."

I'm a shaggy white guy driving a gray silverado with no lights or luggage rack, but who knows? Maybe we live in Mission impossible universe. At least they didn't fire 30 shots into my truck, so I guess I've got that going for me...
 
2013-03-26 04:00:45 PM
Isn't the purpose of the reward to make a criminal's life difficult? To take away their support structure because anyone they turn to might fork them over for the cash? This is meant to be 40 pieces of silver, not a "you got attacked by a wanted felon" lottery. Any reward money paid out comes straight from the taxpayer. Was the guy that got carjacked going to just let bygones be bygones if there was no reward? Yeesh.
 
2013-03-26 04:01:10 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: And how are you going to get criminals to drink antifreeze, Mr. Smartypants?

Just do what the French do and put it in wine.


images.wikia.com
Antifreeze in the wine? That is a very serious crime!
 
2013-03-26 04:01:50 PM

rtaylor92: And if you're going to offer a reward, why don't you take out one of those insurance policies like they do for hole-in-one contests or whatever so that in the event of a technicality, it would be the insurance company that looks like the jerks and not your government.


Glen Greenwald said something interesting about the transition from democratic to tyrannical governments; democratic governments are fearful of the consequences of their actions, tyrannical governments are not.
 
2013-03-26 04:03:23 PM
A million to set a black guy on fire? That shiat used to be free!
 
2013-03-26 04:04:09 PM

semiotix: muck4doo: Am I the only person who sees something wrong with the government offering rewards for information that leads to arrest AND conviction?

Hmm. Setting aside shenanigans like this, what's the problem there? The standards for arrests and convictions are very different, as they should be.

An informant could very easily provide information which led to someone's  arrest simply by lying or exaggerating, but which wouldn't lead to a conviction because the lie wouldn't hold up under investigation. So, no reward, because that would incentivize false reports.

It doesn't really apply to manhunt-style situations like this, but lots of rewards are for information on cases where the perps are unidentified, or known and not on the run.


Logic would dictate that it's important to simply locate the individual being accused of the crime, not locate and convict since locating the person and arresting them is the first step in determining whether or not they are actually guilty of the crime.

Hence, the reward should be for helping our government find the person in question to determine whether or not this person of interest is indeed responsible for the crime, not for finding the person in question AND finding them guilty.

If you help the government find the person and he or she is innocent, you've still helped the government do their job. Now their time is freed up to find the actual individual responsible for the crime.

Making the stipulation of AND convicted shows that the government is only interested in convictions, not actually finding the individual responsible.
 
2013-03-26 04:05:29 PM
The cops couldn't find him.
They put up a reward to find him.
He was found.


IF, and IF on the other hand we are talking about giving tips on UNKNOWN felons, then yes, you only get a reward on arrests on convictions to avoid 'tips' on innocent people that wouldn't have convictions, or waste cops' time.

If this was a movie, it would turn out that Dorner had a waterproof alibi for the murders, and there would be an alternative ending on the DVD.


/either way, the situation sucks
//and stinks
///unlike my slashies
 
2013-03-26 04:06:48 PM
Tigger: meanmutton: Tigger: OregonVet: Tigger: I wasn't suggesting they shouldn't have let him on fire, I'm suggesting that they are disingenuous shiatbags for weaselling out of the deal on a technicality.

How was that a technicality?

You know the answer. Stop it.

Not actually knowing the guy's location counts as a technicality?

I'm with OV on this one.  Sounds like they didn't really turn him in and don't deserve the reward on those grounds.

They don't have to turn him in - they provided the evidence that led to the cops finding him. Had they not lit him on fire he would have been arrested and convicted.

Their specific counter argument was "he wasn't arrested and convicted". The reason for that? He was on fire. It's absolutely clear that the intent of the reward is "help us catch bad guy" - they did help them catch bad guy  in powder form - they should get the reward.

FTFY
 
2013-03-26 04:07:18 PM

Snowflake Tubbybottom: A million to set a black guy on fire? That shiat used to be free!


Goddamn affirmative action!
 
2013-03-26 04:09:01 PM

timujin: I seem to recall that this was the prediction in the original Fark thread on the reward.  That the response would be "Thanks for the report citizen, but the $1M won't be awarded to you because Dorner wasn't arrested and convicted."




Came for this.

/i feel safer
 
2013-03-26 04:11:16 PM

Resident Muslim: The cops couldn't find him.
They put up a reward to find him.
He was found.


IF, and IF on the other hand we are talking about giving tips on UNKNOWN felons, then yes, you only get a reward on arrests on convictions to avoid 'tips' on innocent people that wouldn't have convictions, or waste cops' time.

If this was a movie, it would turn out that Dorner had a waterproof alibi for the murders, and there would be an alternative ending on the DVD.


/either way, the situation sucks
//and stinks
///unlike my slashies


Given the extreme amounts of honor and competence that has been displayed by the local authorities I wouldn't be surprised if he was just blowing off some steam at first with his online rants and some of the other cops saw a chance to settle some old scores with each other and frame him in the process so they could get away with it.
 
2013-03-26 04:13:26 PM
I'd like to see the text of the actual reward offer. It may well be a binding contract...same way a pledge to give something is a binding contract.

Lawyer up, folks.
 
2013-03-26 04:13:55 PM

ha-ha-guy: LowbrowDeluxe: ha-ha-guy: It's amazing how the guy who killed the daughter of his lawyer, her fiancee, and a few cops in random encounters comes out of this as the most credible person in the entire shiat show.  Great good LAPD and other SoCal LEO.

I was going to argue with you on this, because whether he had a point before he started shooting non-combatants he pretty much lost any and all credibility the moment he did...but then I realized that didn't actually disprove what you said.

I think the moment he popped the non-combatants he lost any claim at ethics or the moral high ground, but LAPD spent the entire making him look more and more credible with regard to the claims that LAPD was a brutish and stupid operation.


Yup. If he had killed the guy he had a beef with, and not his daughter I would be willing to at least consider that he might be the good guy.... but he didn't. So he's not a good guy.

But then the police in their bloodthirsty zeal made it clear that THEY weren't the good guys either, that they were murderous bastards too, and now they're just reinforcing that. Maybe now people will realize those rewards are worthless, and next time they offer one a deafening silence will greet them.
 
2013-03-26 04:14:11 PM

K3rmy: "The Running Man" by Stephen King touches upon this oh so slightly.  Money from those in power will cause the down-trodden to betray their brother and thus betray their cause.  It was the way the Games worked.  It kept the dregs entertained and salivating.

Too bad the book could never be literally translated to movie form today.


BUZZSAW BUZZSAW BUZZSAW!
 
2013-03-26 04:14:19 PM
So many great threads getting redlit today
 
2013-03-26 04:15:24 PM
So many good threads getting redlit today.
 
2013-03-26 04:18:04 PM

Snowflake Tubbybottom: A million to set a black guy on fire? That shiat used to be free!


You really should start spending your summers in Phoenix in order to get used to the heat of hell.
 
2013-03-26 04:19:56 PM
This is as sleazy as hitting the jackpot in a casino then having them claim the game "malfunctioned".
 
2013-03-26 04:23:07 PM

Masta Kronix: Making the stipulation of AND convicted shows that the government is only interested in convictions, not actually finding the individual responsible.


That doesn't really follow, unless you're starting from the premise that the government believes that convictions don't "find the individual responsible," in which case you've got a recklessly corrupt or totalitarian government that probably doesn't need to bother with rewards in the first place.

As someone else just noted, the point of (non-manhunt) rewards is to encourage people who wouldn't voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement--i.e., people who are otherwise too shady or too frightened to bother. Governments don't offer rewards just to crowdsource the service of outstanding warrants (which would be a neat idea, which would end in total anarchy). They do it under certain circumstances where it's the best option remaining, because rewards tend to be more expensive than just putting another officer on the case.

In any event, I still think it's the anti-perjury aspect that makes the conviction clause necessary. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping me from dropping a dime on any random person who might fit the bill.

You could be real clever about it, actually. Let's say there's a convenience store robbery Sunday night where someone gets shot by a nondescript white guy wearing a ski mask. That's exactly the kind of thing that rewards get offered for, because it's the sort of thing where you can hit an investigative dead end real fast. I know my nondescript white buddy has a completely airtight alibi for Sunday night, so I turn him in (with lots of juicy, specific, made-up details) and collect my $5000 reward after they arrest him. Maybe if I'm nice, I'll even share some of it with him when he walks out of the precinct completely exonerated a few hours later. Maybe we hatched this plan together, in fact.

I'm just saying, you're pretty much begging for that if you don't make a conviction part of the deal. Hell, people get wrongly arrested on genuinely mistaken witness IDs all the time.
 
2013-03-26 04:23:37 PM

timujin: I seem to recall that this was the prediction in the original Fark thread on the reward.  That the response would be "Thanks for the report citizen, but the $1M won't be awarded to you because Dorner wasn't arrested and convicted."


This is pretty much exactly how it went down.
 
2013-03-26 04:44:37 PM
Like Joe Stack, and Bradley Manning, Dorner joins the ranks of crazy but right.
 
2013-03-26 04:46:45 PM

Elegy: Snarfangel: Quantum Apostrophe: Next time we should get criminals to dress as cats and let the Fark tough guys handle it.

And how are you going to get criminals to drink antifreeze, Mr. Smartypants?

3D printers, duh.


From space, duuuuuuuh.
 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report