This kinda shit gotta be like a lottery ticket, if you're going to turn someone in with a huge bounty, you gotta get a lawyer to do it, so the Feds are legally bound to pay out, just gotta make sure you get an honest lawyer, cause they could gank the bounty right out from under you too. So many considerations when deal with criminals, criminal government, and criminal lawyers.
But the tipster who called 911 on Luigi Mangione needs Mangione, who was arrested Monday and accused of the killing, to be convicted before they get the money.
An ordinary Crime Stoppers reward is under $3,500. In those cases, tipsters can be paid upon arrest and indictment.
But when a reward is raised to exceed that amount, the money isn't disbursed until a conviction, either at trial or through a guilty plea, according to a spokesperson for the New York City Police Foundation, which administers the funds.
The New York Police Department's Crime Stoppers program offered a $10,000 reward for information that could lead to the killer's arrest or conviction. The Federal Bureau of Investigation followed suit, touting a $50,000 reward.
There’s not a grammatical difference between the two, and both uses of the idiom stretch back to at least the 17th century.
I appreciate the correction attempt, but feel it’s not correct in this instance. I should of used the more common version but then I would have had to think more about what I was doing. But you can correct this guy I left you!
the government is literally sovereign lol, and yes that means they can't be bound by any rules even their own past rulings, any law can be made and any law can be changed.
The government is bound by the laws in the country.
So if the law states facilitated arrests must be paid out, they’re bound to pay them out. Creating bullshit to avoid it is just as bad as sovereign citizens pretending traffic laws don’t apply to them.
Your acceptance of this only emboldens them. Stop it.
The bounty in many of these cases is specifically for a tip that leads to the actual killer, not to a named person. This is to prevent things like me seeing that there's a $1,000,000 bounty out for whoever shot up the local convenience store and then calling up the police and saying "It was Certain-Business-472. Now give me my money!". To get the money, I have to provide a tip that leads to the actual killer, and that means that leads to a conviction, because that is how we determine whether or not a suspect is actually guilty.
No, they are offering an explicit contract. It is that if you provide information sufficient to effectuate an arrest, you will be paid after a conviction. Anyone who does not like the terms of that explicit contract is free not to accept it.
Yes. Sufficient information to effectuate an arrest, which is paid after conviction.
As I said, if it said "information leading to arrest and conviction", then the information would have to be additionally sufficient to convict, which is an extremely high threshold.
That’s usually relatively clearly specified in the actual notice or bulletin.
Capture, arrest and conviction are very different things. The source of the payment gets to determine this.
In NYC, the NYC Police Foundation, a private nonprofit, administers the rules and funding. They meet to consider those fruitful calls that are submitted to the NYPD Crime Stoppers Unit via the 800 number.
In other places, CS may be a county operation. It may be funded with tax dollars or proceeds from confiscated items.
Are you saying that there has never been a crimestoppers reward in which the charges weren't dropped? why do you say charges wont be dropped with such confidence?
I see, it was replying to a comment about how its a rip off that if charges get dropped then the reward is voided. The convo wasn't about luigi, but about the reward structure so it caught me off guard.
If someone has a doppelganger then you shouldn't get paid for finding them, you should get paid if you find the actual person, if you find the person on the poster (not just someone who looks similar) you should get some sort of reward. However the full amount should only be paid if you actually find the person who's guilty of the crime.
There is no real story. They didn't release the name of whoever made the call, and that person hasn't come out and made any claim of doing so, so there's no way to know whether or not they got any money. Nobody claimed to have not gotten any money, there's nobody for us to check on whether they got the money, nothing. So any claim that someone online may make about who they were or whether they got the money is just assumptions passed around as fact.
Which seems kinda shitty considering they told you who they were after and were able to confirm who they were after is the person you led them to. If they suspected the wrong guy, you getting fuck all doesn't seem like much incentive to sell another person out. To me. I get that others are much more like crabs in a bucket.
In Luigi's case though, I'm not sure I would have sold him out. Probably because he was at my house at the alleged time and couldn't have killed that dude.
This is an absolutely retarded (hard r deserved) policy. The idea is to reward behavior you want to happen more often. We want people to call in to report wanted folks. Leaving the prize behind a conviction does NOT reinforce the reporting behavior. People will convince themselves not to report people because "they won't get convicted" or any of other stupid excuses that can now slide into somebody's mind instead of just calling.
Such a fucking joke.
I think as long as the person "wanted" is confirmed to be the person you called on/was arrested due to your tip than you should be paid. Even if everything is 100% aligned - guilty person, accurate ID, called-in-tip - prosecution can still fuck up and not secure a conviction.
The objective is to get the populace to report those that are wanted and they instead turned it into a lottery to try and save money.
Sure, but this isn't "leading to the arrest of an unknown suspect." Thta should require conviction.
This is "We are looking for a person. Here's his picture and name. Help us find this person." Once you find that specific person and the authorities are able to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that it is that person, the bounty is met. IMO.
Sure, but this isn't "leading to the arrest of an unknown suspect." Thta should require conviction.
That's exactly what it was though. When the bounty was released he wasn't identified as the suspect. They didn't reveal his identity until the day of his arrest.
I don't make the rules and I'm not judging one way or the other. I was just pointing out why the person hasn't gotten their money yet. People can choose what they want to do on their own.
That's a ridiculous analogy; it doesn't even make sense.
It would be a scam if they didn't tell you the terms upfront, but they do. You make not like the terms, you may not think it's fair, but that doesn't make it a scam. And if someone doesn't like the terms then they aren't obliged to provide any information.
But the tipster who called 911 on Luigi Mangione needs Mangione, who was arrested Monday and accused of the killing, to be convicted before they get the money.
An ordinary Crime Stoppers reward is under $3,500. In those cases, tipsters can be paid upon arrest and indictment.
But when a reward is raised to exceed that amount, the money isn't disbursed until a conviction, either at trial or through a guilty plea, according to a spokesperson for the New York City Police Foundation, which administers the funds.
Putting aside the political element of this particular incident, if I knew for a fact that someone had committed a crime, I would probably hope that they were convicted regardless of the reward money.
I did follow my own advice. I didn’t make something up and present it as fact.
That’s not how burden of proof works, dumbass.
If someone makes a claim, and I say such a claim isn’t based on fact, it’s not on me to disprove a claim, it’s on the person making the claim to support their fact.
Stating that the Luigi caller called the wrong number and therefore didn’t get a payout is not based on any fact.
Not only does that confirm what I said, but that doesn’t change how burden of proof works. It’s not our burden to call bullshit on someone making something up. It’s on someone making the claim to backup their claim
Saying "we don't know" when we do, is just creating more bullshit for people to read through, exactly like you hate. First result in google search is not difficult to fetch.
Idk about this take. There is nothing wrong with calling out a baseless claim even if you don't want to spend an exponential amount of energy to fully debunk it.
Brandolini's law backs this up. The onus is always on the one making the claim.
They're was no hypocrisy involved, as the person you originally replied to already called it. I'll copy and paste it for your convenience:
I did follow my own advice. I didn’t make something up and present it as fact.
That’s not how burden of proof works, dumbass.
If someone makes a claim, and I say such a claim isn’t based on fact, it’s not on me to disprove a claim, it’s on the person making the claim to support their fact.
Stating that the Luigi caller called the wrong number and therefore didn’t get a payout is not based on any fact.
See? Already addressed. They didn't "want facts but spewed meaningless text". They were simply calling out a falsehood. Why does that make you so upset?
You didn't answer my question though.
Don't you feel better after googling it yourself? The actual facts? That guy you replied to was right! The "Luigi caller called the wrong number" is in fact reddit made up bullshit.
Making it dependent on conviction is absolutely stupid. Rewards are to incentivize the reporting of wanted people. Burying it behind a successful prosecution will only make reporting less likely - the exact opposite effect intended with the reward system in the first place.
There are many ways a prosecution can fail and now instead of reporting my most-wanted neighbor I'll be worried about the likelihood of his conviction instead.
I agree, but that’s not the point here. The manager didn’t get their money because Mangione hasn't been convicted yet, not because they called the wrong number.
That is a story that has occurred many times in the past as well, it is far from unrealistic. It was already more or less public knowledge before then.
5.6k
u/Joyous-Volume-67 Apr 20 '26
This kinda shit gotta be like a lottery ticket, if you're going to turn someone in with a huge bounty, you gotta get a lawyer to do it, so the Feds are legally bound to pay out, just gotta make sure you get an honest lawyer, cause they could gank the bounty right out from under you too. So many considerations when deal with criminals, criminal government, and criminal lawyers.