I guess they really want this guy.

I guess they figure its time to turn the manhunt over from incompetent keystone cops to professional bounty-hunters.

I think a legal case could be made that the taxpayers of California should get 100% of any money
from any book/movie that comes in, before anyone else gets a penny.

Dorner won't be paying it though. He's earned his last penny.

A Son of Sam Law is any American law designed to keep criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers. However, this is not in the same manner of asset forfeiture, which is intended to seize assets acquired directly as a result of criminal activity. Where asset forfeiture looks to remove the profitability of crimes by taking away money and assets gained from the crime, Son of Sam laws are designed so that criminals are unable to take advantage of the notoriety of their crimes. Such laws often authorize the state to seize money earned from deals such as book/movie biographies and paid interviews and use it to compensate the criminal's victims. The term "Son of Sam" refers to the nickname of serial killer David Berkowitz, the subject of a notorious 1978 murder case.

In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal. In other cases, a person may not financially benefit from the sale of a story or any other mementos pertaining to the crime—if the criminal was convicted after the date lawmakers passed the law in the states where the crime was committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

While it may seem tasteless, Hollywood has profited from tragedy since its start.

chances are he doesn't have that kind of money - nor will he ever now after killing people. So my guess would be that he will not pay back the costs to taxpayers for this manhunt.

As for book/movie proceeds, isn't there a law (may depend on the state) that disallows profiting from crimes in that way?

"friggin'" deserves it. And, apparently, at least 6 other DUers agree.

"Obviously LA Police - you friggin' deserve it. And if you don't like the threats, then friggin move out of LA County and get jobs elsewhere." "So suck it up LAPD. Have yourselves a merry lil time with this - you must all be drama queens to seek out this person's attention! But don't worry, if he kills you, you'll be able to do something about it then."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022346784

I can understand how you might take it as advocating killing the police, but it's not the intent of the OP as I read it. Author also has unkind words to say about the NYPD.

This news story is allowing many posters with differing life stories to tag their feelings onto it, as it brings up past experiences. I think that's what the OP is about.

Consider the context, for a moment. It's a horrible story that changed her life. But I'd reason it is less about police, more about society not taking stalking seriously.

She felt the officers were indifferent to her fears and told her to move away to escape the man. So she said they should do the same. They would not act until the 'crime' had been committed.

I'd have to add that passing laws on stalking have been difficult for civil rights reasons. The police are constrained by statue and budget to not stand watch and only react to crimes, not prevent them on individuals.

She mentions it as the pre-OJ Simpson trial era. I don't think stalking was codified until after a movie star was attacked, IIRC.

Think in those terms, and get back to me.

It is Antonio Villaraigosa.

He cheated on Corina, whose surname he added to his own, while she was fighting thyroid cancer in 1994 and she filed for divorce, which he talked her out of in order to save his political life.

I have no respect for the man.

eom

So if they shoot him, they don't pay.