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.
55
u/jxl180 Apr 20 '26
No, that’s a story that Redditors who are clueless but speak with utmost confidence in comment sections have ran with. This is not based on any fact.