Think this through carefully. McBride was charged with receiving stolen property and as an accessory after the fact. She knew the men who took the dog, and motivated by the offer of a reward, she got the dog back to the owner.
Do we want people to believe that offers of rewards like this will be enforced in court? Won't that cause more dog snatchings? Maybe it should be illegal to offer a reward like this. It's a kind of encouragement of crime, and it hurts other people.
पोस्ट्स
४२ टिप्पण्या:
"Maybe it should be illegal to offer a reward like this. It's a kind of encouragement of crime, and it hurts other people."
But the crime had ALREADY happened. McBride saw the offer of a reward, knew who had the dog, and got it returned to the owner. No indication that the dog-napper (the son of the person McBride knew) benefited or stands to benefit from the dog-napping. Maybe there's a deal between McBride and the dog-napper to share the reward, but it doesn't say so in the write-up. If there's no such deal, then McBride should get the reward.
"No questions asked" is an explicit offer to turn a blind eye to any illegal or gray areas. Everyone knows that.
In 1999 someone emptied the truck holding all the instruments and performance equipment for the band Sonic Youth. Years later two teenage boys reported an uncle after finding some easily identifiable stuff in storage...the band paid a few hundred dollars to get back what was there...and still wants to recover other items...
https://pitchfork.com/news/47906-sonic-youth-recover-stolen-guitars-after-13-years/
Ms. Gaga knows all of this.
Doesn't "accessory after the fact" require that you intended to help the person accused of theft get away with it? Also, wouldn't receipt of stolen property for the purpose of returning it to the owner not be a crime? Finally, didn't Lady Gaga's offer of the reward almost necessarily indicate that she would pay off the dog thiefs for return of the dogs - who else would be in a position to return them?
Why didn't McBride just call the police and tell them where the dogs were? I agree with RM though, if she wasn't in on the dognapping then she should get the award. And, if the intent was to return the dogs to the owner then she shouldn't have been charged. Once again, if she wasn't in on the dognapping in the first place.
My memory of this is that Lady Gaga offered a half million for the dogs' return and nothing to the guy who got shot defending those dogs. She might want to settle to get this out of public view. Her reaction to this crime didn't make her look good. There's something jarring about her love for those dogs and her indifference to the plight of her dog walker.
Rich people problems. Do not care.
She wants to take the ransom that the dog-thieves she knew and betrayed cannot. She is an accessory to the crime. She should get bupkus!
We should just shoot people who kidnap for ransom.
Should there be a law against offering a reward for info concerning a HUMAN kidnapping? Or for the return of a HUMAN kidnapping victim? The expectation of such a reward seems to drive a kidnapping industry in Colombia and other parts of Latin America. (Is there already such a law? If so, it doesn't seem to be effective.)
There are no good Samaritans anymore, only sick Palestinians... Ohio. (as per Drew Carey song)
Always thought Gaga was older.
Not a lot, mind you, but early 40s...
Do we want people to believe that offers of rewards like this will be enforced in court? Won't that cause more dog snatchings?
It could just as likely discourage dog snatchings, since criminals know that a "no questions asked" reward policy makes them a juicy target for a dog rescue, or a neighbor/friend/co-conspirator deciding to snitch.
Either way, Gaga made the offer, and any decent person would honor such a promise.
The offer of the reward isn’t a contract so the reward doesn’t have to be paid. However, Gaga is reneging on her offer. Under what plausible circumstances would she have paid the reward?
Gaga said "no questions asked", not "This is an unconditional offer that can only be accepted by performance." Gaga wins.
could this flip become a flick??
>>> reversed lesson to be learned from Gibson movie Ransom??
Once you say “no questions asked.” It should mean you will ask no questions.l and hand over the money.
A lot of the stolen dogs are taken by rescuers, including, famously PETA here in Virginia who took some poor kids’ pet Chihuahua right off the porch of their trailer home. The dog was put down. Demonstrating the empathy for which PETA liberals are so famous, they eventually sent the family a fruit basket. Not a replacement Chihuahua and a years’ supply of dog food. Nope. A fruit basket.
Others are eaten by urban coyotes, and, in the Hollywood Hills, mountain lions.
Some go into woods and get lost.
There was a dog across the street and down the block who regularly ran out of the house, across the street, and over to the bicycle park. Wife and I haven’t seen it for months now. Did it run into the street once too often?
Criminal law doesn't have to recognize your private agreements. Lady Gaga is welcome to turn a blind eye. The State is under no obligation to do the same.
How can I get in on this racket? Dognapping seems rather profitable. And its not like the Dog really cares. Give them enough good food, and they'll take the "kidnapping" in style.
""Maybe it should be illegal to offer a reward like this. It's a kind of encouragement of crime, and it hurts other people."/But the crime had ALREADY happened. McBride saw the offer of a reward, knew who had the dog, and got it returned to the owner...."
Well, obviously, I'm talking about the effect going forward. Gaga wanted her dog back, so she offered money, but by showing this is a way to get money, she's contributing to an environment in which people think they can profit from stealing dogs.
The original dognappers can always find a friend or family member after the fact to say they found the dog and to collect the money or at least think they can do that. And we don't know whether McBride was in on it all along. It couldn't be proved and she was let off the hook.
If the plaintiff isn't convicted of the crime she is accused of, then Gaga should pay the reward. It does seem like an enforceable contract to me. However, if she were in any way involved in the crime itself, then no, it shouldn't be enforced.
"The original dognappers can always find a friend or family member after the fact to say they found the dog and to collect the money or at least think they can do that. And we don't know whether McBride was in on it all along. It couldn't be proved and she was let off the hook."
Well, it was always going to be the case that a friend or family member was going to be the person who was in a position to return the dogs or give up their location. This might be the best way to settle the issue- let a civil jury decide it. They can either be convinced the plaintiff wasn't a party to the crime, or not.
A new criminal offence for pet abduction is set to be introduced under government plans to crack down on pet theft following a reported rise in pets being stolen during the pandemic. The new law will recognise (sic) the welfare of animals and that pets are valued as more than property.
GOV.UK
Call me crazy, but I think this has more to do with regretting making an offer of $500,000 than anything else.
Marty H: "The offer of the reward isn’t a contract ..."
It most certainly *is* a contract in most jurisdictions. It's called a unilateral contract, and you're bound if someone fulfills the conditions. Lady Gaga seems to be in Los Angeles, so we can look at (pulls a case out of the ether)... Davis v. Jacoby (1934) 1 Cal.2d 370 ["an offer of a reward is a clear-cut offer of a unilateral contract which cannot be accepted by a promise to perform, but only by performance"].
And even if it's the thief, LGG apparently said "no questions asked", thus at least implicitly waiving any claims of 'unclean hands' or the like as a defense to the contract.
Now, maybe in some jurisdictions there are express statutes that vitiate a wrongdoer's ability to contractually profit from his crime. If so, apply the statute and void the contract. (I'm too lazy to look up California.)
But not knowing much more than is presented herein -- and there obviously could be a lot of other factors involved -- I think she needs to cough up the cash.
Isn't a big point of monetary rewards that those who are close to the crime rat out those they know?
If the lady didn't respond Lady Gaga wouldn't have gotten the dogs back and the lady didn't respond because of her natural love for humanity or Lady Gaga.
I don't the law on rewards. If offered, does that create a binding contract if the condition is fulfilled?
Seems iffy to me. $500,000 for the return of a frappin' dog? How could that be sensible to anyone?
She's got a point (I think--usually the actual "facts" of most legal situations are "complicated," as we say in the business). The Lady did offer the money.
On the other hand, if she had anything to do with the dogs being nabbed in the first place, I think there is some elderly common law that ought to apply, such as "unclean hands."
The person/s that stole the dog was arrested and charged?
If that happened, than morally, Gaga needs to pay off her obligation.
I'll leave the lawyer stuff to lawyers.
"My memory of this is that Lady Gaga offered a half million for the dogs' return and nothing to the guy who got shot defending those dogs."
That never was true.
"No questions asked" is a clear reference to no questions about how the person came to be in possession of the item bring returned--that is, it is an offer of ransom as much as a reward. Ethically, Gaga should pay it if she got the dogs back. Period.
Whether it should be enforceable in court is another matter. It's not a contact and i can't think of another area of law that would apply.
I would imagine the $500,000 would be taxable income? I am sure the state needs the revenue.
More shots fired here than by..you..you know the thing!'
"Fischer said the bullet ripped through his upper right torso, “right next to my brachial plexus and the collar bone area,” before it exited out his back under his shoulder blade. “It went through my lung because I was reaching forward, trying to grab Koji,” he said.
Fischer testified that he was rushed into surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and spent a week at the hospital under the fake name Randy Goodwin due to the media frenzy surrounding the case. He returned to the hospital two days after his release because his “lung had collapsed again.” After a “few” procedures with “chest tubes being placed in and out,” Fischer needed yet another major surgery, he testified.
“I consented to part of my lung being removed. The top third of my lung being removed as well as the bottom portion as well,” he told the grand jury. He said his recovery has been rocky. He still suffers from “breathing issues” and numbness in his chest and needs constant physical therapy to stop scar tissue from strangling the nerves affecting his mobility, especially in his right arm down to his fingers, he said. “When I go from the ground up to stand, I have to, I still get very close to passing out,” he testified. “So I have to take a moment with that.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lady-gaga-dog-walker-grand-jury-transcript-1326528/
If someone steals something from you, you certainly should be able to double cross the thief or accomplices in order to get your property back. This would discourage theft, I would think.
I don't the law on rewards. If offered, does that create a binding contract if the condition is fulfilled?
========
now do advertising claims >> are they offers inviting acceptance
Gambling debts are not legally enforceable. Nor are debts incurred for acts of prostitution, or for drugs or other contraband. Of course, Lady Gaga (I can't believe I'm actually using that set of characters to refer to a person) wanted to be trusted to pay the ransom. But that doesn't mean the law should assist her.
Libertarians, like I used to be, want to think that the law should hold people to any contract they make while sane. "Free minds, free markets". But one day it occurred to me that there are people who would sell themselves into slavery. Quite a few of them, in fact. But it is no business of the law to enforce such a contract. Caveat emptor.
The contract is void as against public policy to the extent that it allows someone who is complicit in the wrong to collect.
There is a fine line separating social justice from criminal intent.
Ideally, there be a way to punish everyone involved in this including GaGa.
Ideally, there'd be a way to punish everyone involved in this including GaGa.
The Israelis once had a policy (maybe they still do): Any Israeli taken hostage is immediately considered dead. There will be no ransom paid, but retribution will be meted out without mercy. If in the process the “dead” hostage is recovered alive, that’s a bonus. But by establishing a zero negotiation stance, they made the taking of Israeli hostages a really bad idea.
It sounds like the Professor is advocating a similar common-sense strategy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा