Citizens who helped find killer cop denied reward

Ken Layne, writes that the authorities have denied the rewards promised to those who helped them find cop-killer Christopher Dorner. [The Awl]

Three brave heroes who survived their encounters with Dorner have since claimed the reward, but the stingy governments and groups who offered the money now refuse to pay because Dorner somehow didn't survive an army of cops roasting and demolishing the mountain cabin he holed up inside for his last stand.

After the LAPD's gung-ho public rampage in search of Dorner, a final insult to the people they ostensibly serve seems entirely appropriate. Update: Commenter Ethan points out, though, that the LAPD itself is planning to honor reward offers: "It's the city of Riverside that withdrew the reward. Irvine is still planning to pay it out as is LA. The LAPD Deputy Chief said it would be disingenuous to deny the reward because Dorner was killed."


        1. Actually, it’s true, at least in that they are trained to lie to suspects to elicit confessions. And you know that thing about if you’re selling drugs to someone and ask if they’re an undercover cop they’re not allowed to lie? That’s a lie. 

          Between that and the code of silence regarding fellow officers’ misdeeds, is it any wonder that dishonesty spills over the bounds of interrogation room or undercover operation and into other areas, like the witness stand and the press conference?

  1.  Well, virtually ALL rewards are offered “for information leading to the arrest and conviction of…” the wanted person, which is an incentive to dissuade the type of vigilante justice you might get with a “wanted dead or alive” type offer.  So the reward claimers have no ground to stand on, which is probably better for society in the larger picture.

    But it is a problem that a case could be made that those responsible for Dorner’s death had a financial incentive for not bringing him back alive.

    1. According to the article, CA law has specific provision for rewards that have this language in cases where the suspect is killed by police action. Namely, the requirement for arrest and conviction is lifted. So they have a legal case, if you believe the article (but I’m not about to look up CA Penal Code to check).

  2. It’s the city of Riverside that withdrew the reward. Irvine is still planning to pay it out as is LA. The LAPD Deputy Chief said it would be disingenuous to deny the reward because Dorner was killed.

    1. And they get two rewards!  Not getting shot by Dorner, and not getting shot by the cops after him!

      Three, if you count “Not getting shot by the cops after asking for the promised reward.”

      All of those are a privilege, not a right!

  3. the city of riverside should be punished for pulling their reward offer.  i recommend forcing them to live in the city of riverside…

  4. Can you change the headline to something more accurate? The claimants aren’t being denied the reward. Several of the parties that contributed to the reward pool are saying that the conditions of the reward have not been met, the whole “arrest and convict” part. 

    This is a separate issue from if the claimants deserver or are ever awarded the reward. 

  5. Next time LA has a raging copkiller on the loose maybe it will take longer to gun down the suspect due to lack of leads…

    1. Next time anyone offers a reward for anyone to participate in a large-scale manhunt, people are going to remember this.  And the way LAPD fired upon the ladies on their paper route.  And how the Torrance PD shot up that surfer’s truck.
      Good freaking luck enlisting any help from me, boys.

      1.  You know, Cary Allen woulda muscled outta that carjacking and… VOOM.

        He’s a REAL AMERICAN HERO.

        1.  I’m just saying that anyone who is the victim of a crime would contact the police, and that’s not really so special, not that they should have done anything differently. Sheesh.

          1. Lol, I was thinking the same thing as Cary. Being a victim of a psychopath isn’t the picture I had in mind when a reward for arrest is offered. But that isn’t a valid reason to payout of course, nor do I agree with Riverside’s decision.

          2.  I guess there are people who get carjacked, and just shrug their shoulders and mutter ‘damn,’ but I’ve never met anyone like that.

          3. No.  Speaking from experience, I can tell you that crime victims in police districts which are known to be problematic do not all automatically contact the police after the crime.

Comments are closed.