CNN is reporting that the sniper is demanding $10 million. Assuming that this money is to stop the shootings, should we pay? I say no, for the obvious reason that it will only invite every other nutcase to do the same thing. Anyone care to offer an argument for why we should pay a ransom? Is ending the violence and disruption worth $10 million?
We should OFFER to pay, so the guy has to try to pick it up, and we may be able to use that to track him. But we should not actually pay the money. As you said, it opens the door to everybody who’d like to get rich quick. And there is no guarantee he’ll actually stop anyway.
No, I don’t think we should give him $10 million. Out of curiosity, how would he get the money, should it be decided to pay him off? He really can’t say, “leave it at such and such place”, or wire it to a certain account. He’ll get busted for sure if a money exchange takes place.
Eric
Rostrei good question, but I assume, if this is about money, that our perpetrator has got that figured out. Perhaps we shouldn’t speculate here on ways in which to transfer money without being traceable, this being a public board and all, but assume for the sake of the discussion that such a mechanism exists.
But that’s exactly what I meant. He may think it’s untraceable, but the cops may be able to use that to help track him down.
Any discussion with this guy is good, because it provides more opportunity to get clues.
The problem is, so far at least, he seems to be doing a fair job of keeping ahead of the police.
So, assume if he gets the money he walks away. Let’s even assume, for the moment, that a payoff can be made that need not be made public. That is, the sniper has arranged for a mechanism for the transfer to take place and then he will stop. The public at large will not be made aware of the payoff, so any effect of incouraging other nuts will be minimal, and at least no greater than the threat of copycats is now from fame seekers etc. The police will continue to go through the motions of tracking him down, but he gets the money and stops killing. Would this change anyone’s mind?
Too many assumptions. First, you have to assume he will stop. Second, you have to assume the public will never find out. Neither of these is a good assumption.
Well, taking a somewhat different view of the OP. I really doubt that the sniper is in this for money. He is, most likely, in this for the ego boost that a)killing people gives him and b) the thrill of making the cops look like fools. He is doing a damned good job of killing people and getting away with it so far.
I bet the money demand is nothing more than a ploy to play with the cops some more. If the Cops agreed to pay the money I bet the sniper would set up some sort of drop and never show. The sniper has the whole D.C. area scared, has the cops baffled and the press reporting on his every move. Most serial killers thrive on power and the sniper has a whole lot of power right now.
Slee
I agree with sleestak. After going for as long as he has, he may have decided to play with the cops a bit with the whole money thing. Plus, it’s been obvious from the start that he follows his media just to screw with people, and this makes sure he stays in the media even more.
Since no one seems to want to jump up and defend paying him…
I don’t honestly think this is about the money either; my question was more one of making economic decisions and the value of human life. I’ll try one more time. 
Suppose the sniper makes this offer: If you put $10 million in a Swiss escrow account to be paid out to group X, he will surrender and make it look like the police captured him. The idea being, that upon his surrender the escrow agent will deliver the $10M to X. Continue to assume secrecy for the sake of the discussion. Would you do that? Is there any circumstance under which you would be willing to pay the sniper himself (since I know we have rewards for information) to end violence like that which the sniper has been committing?
I still say no, but I can’t justify it based on the fear of the public knowing and opening the door to a flood of similar incidents if I know that the deal can be kept quiet. I justify it on the basis that as a society we should refuse to negotiate while under duress, but I am troubled by the fact that my position could result in additional deaths and economic losses in the future. Suppose that I decline the sniper’s escrow offer, and he kills four more people over the next two weeks and is then caught. Now society is worse off than if they had paid for the surrender, having suffered losses that exceed the $10M (assuming that each person was worth, at least in an economic sense, $4-6M and the cost of the ongoing investigation is in the millions per day) Was it still the right decision not to pay?
While I agree with sleestack and David, I think the guy made a big mistake.
If he was truly a random sniper/crazy, and quit doing it sometime without contacting the authorities, he would probably never be caught.
But he fucked up, in my opinion. Assuming all of the contacts are from the sniper, he has entered into a scenario which will get him caught. He just cut his odds way down on getting away free.
Every time he writes something or receives a call, he runs a risk of being caught. While he may be just playing a new game and taunting the police, he just increased his chances of getting caught by a big factor.
My prediction: They’ll get him.
To your point, and last post.
Of course it was the right decision not to pay.
I’ve seen that movie a thousand times. You don’t pay.
It ain’t about economics. It’s about what works. And not paying the SOB’s is the way to go. Not pretty for people who get killed in the line of fire, but that’s what works in the case of someone like the sniper.
Fake payment, OK. Payment with a trap, OK. But that’s it.
Rhum, my understanding is that the U.S. has a policy that they will never bargin-pay in these type of situations.
Personally I would never pay in this type of situation. No good can come from paying. Paying would be giving into violent blackmail which would be a very bad precident to set.
samclem, I agree that the sniper probably screwed up by leaving the note and calling the cops. At the same time the sniper has shot 13 people and got away clean. There are reports of some sort of white van but those aren’t very reliable.
The sniper has been very good at evading cops and witnesses. I imagine that he has a good plan on a way to call the cops and get away. I believe that this guy will be caught but later rather than sooner. The reason is that, while he is goading the cops, he doesn’t leave evidence like other killers.
Hopefully they will catch the bastard before he kills anyone else but I doubt that will happen. The killer will be caught by making a mistake. So far he hasn’t made a mistake.
Slee
I just had this thought: Suppose that he wants the money dropped at a secret location, knowing that the cops’ll be all over the place. So he sets it up like this: The cops have to give a message to the media stating that they have the money ready, the sniper contacts the cops from the drop point and says that they have 15 minutes (or some other absurdly short amount of time) to deliver the money to the drop point. Every cop, FBI officer, ATF officer, national guard soldier in the area descends on the location in order to capture the nutjob before he can flee, as they surround the drop zone, the sniper sets off an OKC style bomb, taking himself out, along with a large number of law enforcement personnel and any bystanders.
Tuckerfan,
The sniper doesn’t want to die. He wants to control the world. If he wanted to die he would have entered a gun fight with cops-FBI agents or something similar. His power is a) feeling like God, as he stated on a tarot card and b) yanking the cops around.
This guy is enjoying his ‘game’ of killing people and jacking the cops around.
Slee
Judging from the effectiveness of his escapes, I htink we have to assume the guy is pretty intelligent and rational.
Which leads me to believe that the demand for money is either meant as a red herring to keep the police busy, or involves a foreign government that we don’t get along with. (Cuba, N. Korea, Somalia, etc…etc…)
Would anyone care to draw parallels to or distinguish the OP from the Iran/Contra Arms for Hostages program? Seems like we did something of a payoff there.
just out of curiosity…is there any proof at all that the demands actually came from the sniper, and not from someone else who thinks they can use the situation to profit for themselves. 
therefore, paying up wouldn’t affect the killing of more innocent people at all.
Let’s hope you’re right, sleestak. One of the sub-heads on the local paper stated that the handwritting on the tarot card did not match that of the letter the police have. I haven’t been able to find an on-line cite for that, however, even checking the websites for the paper, CNN, or USA Today (which owns the local paper).
If it didn’t result in many, many innocent deaths, I’d recommend in putting the $10 million as a bounty on his head.