Judge rules that Lady Gaga does not have to give reward to dognapper for “finding” stolen bulldogs
A "no questions asked" reward just doesn't mean what you think it does
Aux News lady gaga
In 2021, Lady Gaga’s dog walker was shot (he lived) and her two French bulldogs were stolen, with Gaga offering a “no questions asked” reward of $500,000 for anyone who could provide information on the people behind the heist. The dogs were eventually returned by a woman named Jennifer McBride, but she sued Gaga after the pop icon refused to give her the reward for some reason. Now, two years later, TMZ says that a judge has dismissed McBride’s lawsuit, meaning Gaga is officially off the hook and doesn’t have to pay her! And all because McBride… was involved in stealing the dogs in the first place.
So yeah, one of the people who helped steal the dogs and was there when the dog walker got shot later took the dogs to the police, claiming she had found them, but Billboard explains she was later charged with one count of “receiving stolen property” and one count of “being an accessory after the fact” (she pleaded no contest in December and received two years of probation), and then she still tried to get the $500,000 reward. Obviously that’s pretty silly, and the judge on this case noted that McBride cannot “profit from her participation in a crime.” As TMZ put it: “AKA, uh… duh!”
But here’s the thing: What’s the point of a “no questions asked” reward if you’re allowed to ask one question, and that question is “did you steal these dogs”? What other questions could be asked that would necessitate a “no questions asked” reward? That was McBride’s argument, saying that Gaga’s offer was “unilateral,” but apparently our legal system doesn’t weigh the word of Lady Gaga equal to the word of the law. Which, arguably, might be an oversight. The Founding Fathers should’ve seen this one coming.
34 Comments
As TMZ put it: “AKA, uh… duh!”
Also known as, uh… duh?
Don’t recognize her. She looks more like a Kardashian every day.
What a weird and inaccurate comment.
Ok. I have seen other photos and she looks like so many women who are adopting that Kardashian sculpted, cat-eyed, full-lipped, slighty pissed-off look. And she has most certainly altered her nose which is her business but she always said that she wouldn’t. Half the women on instagram look like a Kardashian. That’s weird.
What a weird and inaccurate comment.
That’s makeup and age. She most certainly has not altered her nose.
I’m not really interested in arguing about this. I like her work; I don’t care much about celebrities. It was an observation.
“And she has most certainly altered her nose which is her business but she always said that she wouldn’t.”
Oh, you’re one of those sad cunts who can’t let other people live their lives.
How about you fuck off and think about things that actually matter?
Sometimes it’s best just to keep your opinions to yourself.
Well, fuck. What am I gonna do with all these celebrity dogs now?
Are they the dogs of celebrities, or dogs that are celebrities?
*looks in shed*Er. Yes.
I hear The Shaggy Dog is rolling in that Iron Man money.
Dress up the barn out back and put on a show!
Well, so much for my retirement plan.
These “get rich illegally” schemes always have a catch!
Are you kidding? That plan will work great! Commit crime, get caught, then retire in San Quentin (which I hear is lovely this time of year).
Yeah, it’s pretty well established precedent that you can’t profit like that from a crime you committed.Although the facts here are unique, it often comes up with things like murderers trying to cash in on the victim’s life insurance claims. Can’t do that, even if they would otherwise pay out.
It’s also pretty well established that you can lie to catch a criminal and that not all criminals are terribly bright.
I love the discussion on Homicide: Life on the Streets after they trick a suspect into confessing by convincing him a copy machine is a lie detector about whether stupid people commit crimes, or crime makes you stupid
I got NO sympathy for the dogwalker shooter/dognappers, but like attorney/therapy/confession client privilege, is the “no questions asked” reward something we should maybe swallow for the greater good?If a criminal is willing to do some time for the right price, and the offerer clearly recognizes that (thus the No Questions Asked), is it better for society to pay them the money?It’s grim, but consider the alternative where the next criminal knows the offer is a setup, so they keep their mouth shut, and the dogs, and the shooter, are never found.
Or the person never kidnaps the dogs in the first place, because they know the reward isn’t available to them.
In this case, the promise of a reward had its intended effect of getting the dogs back and identifying parties involved in the crime. So no, there isn’t any benefit to society if the person gets half a million dollars. The phrase “no questions asked” isn’t legally binding, and anyone thinking critically about the situation would realize that there are always questions about a crime (especially if someone got shot).
Yeah I don’t know the answer but it is a question that needs to be asked. If she had just offered a reward, then yes, dismiss the lawsuit. But since it specifically said “no questions asked,” I feel like that should also be taken at face value. I think the right result was probably reached? You shouldn’t be able to get a half a million dollars as payment for a crime, but also…don’t offer a no questions asked reward if you plan to ask questions? Idk.Anyway if the thief was smart she would have had someone else she trusts to turn in the dogs and then agree to give them a cut of the reward. But the problem is thieves don’t trust anybody. Because they’re thieves.
“But since it specifically said “no questions asked,””
Do you think “no questions asked” is a legal term, you fucking idiot?
Maybe fuck off?
Nope, not better for society to pay them the money. Rewarding criminal behavior just encourages other folks to engage in the same behavior.
Wasn’t that the plot of the movie Ransom?
This is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since Lionel Hutz’s suit against the film The Neverending Story!
What do people think is Gaga’s most underrated song? I might go with “Sinner’s Prayer”
“But here’s the thing: What’s the point of a “no questions asked” reward if you’re allowed to ask one question, and that question is “did you steal these dogs”?”
No Questions Asked isn’t a legal term, moron.
Maybe she pledged the money!
Look, I’m not exactly sorry this woman didn’t get her half mil, and psychos who go around shooting dog walkers and stealing their dogs need to be taken off the streets. Plus, I’m sure Gaga doesn’t want to be seen as an easy payday. Buuuut… isn’t a ‘no questions asked’ reward implicitly aimed at the dognappers? God forbid it happens again, her only option will be to go full Mel Gibson in Ransom.
‘What’s the point of a “no questions asked” reward if you’re allowed to ask one question, and that question is “did you steal these dogs”?’But Lady Gaga didn’t ask any questions of the person seeking the reward, and likely didn’t ask any questions at all. It was the prosecutor that was asking the questions.So it’s still safe for someone to seek a reward from returning something they stole in the first place as long as they don’t get convicted of the theft.