Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on June 16, 2017, 09:37:14 AM
-
A good guy with a gun (it actually looks like possibly two of them) captured those escaped murderers that have been running wild. Looks like their scary tattoos were trumped by steel. I hope he (or they) gets the reward.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/16/hero-homeowner-holds-escaped-georgia-inmates-at-gunpoint-until-arrests.html
-
Unpossible! No one with a gun can be a good guy!
Liberals told me so!
-
Enough with the fantasies of masculine power, you guys. This could never really happen.
But if it did happen, the homeowner didn't shoot them, because white privilege.
-
I'm waiting to see how they renege on the $130000 bounty. :police:
-
^^^Last I saw on the 'net was the reward was revoked as they were "captured by LE." This new report about the homeowner and his neighbor...I wonder...
-
I'm waiting to see how they renege on the $130000 bounty. :police:
That would be pretty nasty.
As I heard, it was "Information leading to the arrest."
I'd think that the information of "I'm holding them at gunpoint, please come pick them up" OUGHT to be more than sufficient.
-
I'm waiting to see how they renege on the $130000 bounty. :police:
I wondered about that too. It stimulated some thinking and questions.
"Holding them at gunpoint isn't 'information' leading to their arrest."
But the neighbor's phone call was "information..."
Or "The offeror wasn't authorized to make that $130K reward offer."
I wonder if they'll give the reward as an annuity, or a lump sum.
What are the federal or other tax ramifications?
Could it somehow be considered "compensation for a loss," as in insurance claims? I suppose a sharp lawyer could twisty-turn it into something like that.
Legal / historical precedents, please, lawyers among us?
If they do disburse, I wonder how the money might be split between the two, if at all.
ETA Ooops, I missed makattack's post while I was mulling this over.
If they agree to split it, either should be happy with 65 large, I suppose.
???
Terry, 230RN
-
Well, it's not as if some low down dirty no good deplorable gun owner menacing the innocent criminals deserves the reward anyway.
Now if one of the neighbors who is a Brady donator called in to report that some low down dirty no good deplorable gun owner was menacing those nice gentlemen the police were looking for, they should definitely get the reward.
-
Well, it's not as if some low down dirty no good deplorable gun owner menacing the innocent criminals deserves the reward anyway.
Now if one of the neighbors who is a Brady donator called in to report that some low down dirty no good deplorable gun owner was menacing those nice gentlemen the police were looking for, they should definitely get the reward.
:), but I'm not clear on whom your meant by "they." The captor(s), or the Brady donator?
"they" = the good guy(s) with the gun?
"they" = the Brady donor?
Context does not really make it clear.
Terry, picker of nits, but nits are what make court cases and enrich lawyers, 230RN
-
:), but I'm not clear on whom your meant by "they." The captor(s), or the Brady donator?
"they" = the good guy(s) with the gun?
"they" = the Brady donor?
Context does not really make it clear.
Terry, picker of nits, but nits are what make court cases and enrich lawyers, 230RN
Not even close. I was talking about Obama.
-
Taxable as income, just like lottery winnings.
-
The reward has been given out. From the article, it appears it went to the homeowner and neighbor in a 50/50 split. If that's the case, all's well that ends well. :)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/23/20000-in-reward-money-given-out-for-help-catching-inmates.html
-
The reward has been given out. From the article, it appears it went to the homeowner and neighbor in a 50/50 split. If that's the case, all's well that ends well. :)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/23/20000-in-reward-money-given-out-for-help-catching-inmates.html
No, the reward hasn't been given out. A PORTION of the award has been given out; the part put up by GBI, totaling only about 1/6th of the total award offered.
No word on the parts controlled by that dick of a Sheriff who gloated that they wouldn't have to give the award out because, well, some police had seen the two at some undefined point in the past, and well, that was the real reason why they were captured.
LOOPHOLES!
-
No, the reward hasn't been given out. A PORTION of the award has been given out; the part put up by GBI, totaling only about 1/6th of the total award offered.
No word on the parts controlled by that dick of a Sheriff who gloated that they wouldn't have to give the award out because, well, some police had seen the two at some undefined point in the past, and well, that was the real reason why they were captured.
LOOPHOLES!
Well that sucks.
-
No, the reward hasn't been given out. A PORTION of the award has been given out; the part put up by GBI, totaling only about 1/6th of the total award offered.
No word on the parts controlled by that dick of a Sheriff who gloated that they wouldn't have to give the award out because, well, some police had seen the two at some undefined point in the past, and well, that was the real reason why they were captured.
LOOPHOLES!
I would have no problem with the hero taking justice into his own hands with the sheriff. I'll leave "justice" to your imagination. (I knew they would renege on the bounty)
-
You were right about the reneging, so far.
But, from the Fox link above,
The trooper says the homeowner held the two at gunpoint with a neighbor he called until the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department could get there to arrest them.
Isn't that one of those "citizen's arrests" in the first place?
Since apparently they "accepted" a portion of the reward, I wonder if somehow that concluded the matter. Offer made, offer accepted.
Trouble is, if they have to fight for the remainder of the stated amount, the only ones who will probably win are the lawyers.
I'm betting whomever owes the rest of the reward "was not authorized to offer it."
Terry