Return to Transcripts main page


New Info on Arizona Massacre Emerges; Supreme Court Examines Same-Sex Marriage

Aired March 27, 2013 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. It's 10:00 here on the East Coast.

The answer could make history. The question is, did the Supreme Court today decide there is no good way of defending the Defense of Marriage Act?

Also tonight, we will take you right to the brink after a massive and mysterious landslide where nothing is certain, not even the ground beneath your feet. The images of these houses on the brink are incredible.

And later, new insight, new details into the dark and dangerous mind of that man, the Tucson rampage killer -- what he was doing and saying as he prepared to unleash mayhem, warning signs we didn't know about then, but we certainly know about tonight.

We begin though tonight at the Supreme Court with signs that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is in deep constitutional trouble. DOMA, as it's called, is the 1996 federal law defining marriage as being solely between man and a woman. But tell that to an 83-year-old widow named Edith Windsor who braved the crowd today, fought the fight to get her story and the case that bears her name, United States v. Windsor, before the highest court in the land.

Edith Windsor married her wife in Canada. When her wife died, Windsor was forced to pay $360,000 in inheritance tax, because her marriage, her legal marriage, was not recognized by the federal authorities under DOMA. Lower courts have ruled against DOMA. The Obama administration has refused to defend it.

A lawyer for House Republicans speaking for it today heard some tough questioning from six of the nine justices.


ELENA KAGAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Well, is what happened in 1996 -- and I'm going to quote from the House report here -- is that Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality. Is that what happened in 1996?

SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: What gives the Federal Government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is? ANTHONY KENNEDY, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: When it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizen's day-to-day life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: As Justice Kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. You're saying, no, state said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.


COOPER: Well, afterwards, Edith Windsor said it went beautifully and That her late spouse, Thea Spyer, would be pleased.


EDIE WINDSOR, PLAINTIFF: Today is like a spectacular event for me. It's a lifetime kind of event.

And I know that the spirit of my late spouse, Thea Spyer, OK, is right here watching and listening, and would be very proud and happy of where we have come to.


COOPER: Well, today's case came just a day after oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban. Justices, both liberal and conservative, seemed reluctant yesterday to use it as the basis for sweeping national change.

This case, DOMA, on the other hand, could be just the opposite.

Senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was inside the court again today and he joins us tonight from outside the court.

So I know everything comes with a caveat that the Supreme Court could surprise us and it is hard to predict. But you say you think that DOMA is in trouble, that a majority of justices seem to be inclined to throw it out. What makes you say that?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Because of what Anthony Kennedy said. That's really what it comes down to, because the four Democratic members of the -- Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court were all very clearly hostile to the Defense of Marriage Act.

And so where were they going to get the fifth vote? Anthony Kennedy is the only really likely possibility, but repeatedly during the oral argument today, he expressed what appeared to be his view that the Defense of Marriage Act violated states' rights. He did not talk about that it righted the rights of gay people. He said that it violates the states' ability to regulate and create the laws of marriage.

And he said it over and over again. And that is a winning argument for the Defense of Marriage Act critics, of Edith Windsor and company.

COOPER: Chief Justice John Roberts was critical of how the president, President Obama, is handling DOMA. The Obama administration, they're not defending the law in court, but it's still enforcing it. Here's the part of what the chief justice said. I want to play that.


JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we will wait until the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.


COOPER: Some tough words there, questioned whether the president has the courage of his convictions. That was the term he used. Does the chief justice have a point, though? Is the White House trying to have things both ways?

TOOBIN: Well, you know, the White House has approached this case in a very careful, one might say political, manner.

They don't want to push too far, alienate too many opponents of same-sex marriage, so they are sort of dumping this problem in the Supreme Court's lap, and Chief Justice Roberts was not too happy about that.

COOPER: It's interesting, though. You said before the Supreme Court doesn't want to be seen on the wrong side of history. And yet the indications, at least from the Prop 8 arguments yesterday, are that a majority of the justices are not eager to deal with the merits of the case or they feel that the timing isn't right.

What I don't get is, especially about yesterday, something, to me, isn't it either constitutional or it's not? It's clearly a major issue in this country. The tide of public opinion seems to be shifting and unmistakable. Why kick the can down the road if something is unconstitutional or constitutional?

TOOBIN: Well, this was the thing that I thought was so interesting. We talked so much about how public opinion has changed.

But it was the conservatives on the court who kept raising the issue of public opinion. John Roberts did it again today. He said, look, you are making all kinds of progress state by state. Why do you want us to get involved? Why should the Supreme Court get involved when this is a live political issue, you're making all kinds of progress? And, of course, the challengers to the Defense of Marriage Act, just like the challengers to Proposition 8, said this is why we have a Supreme Court, to decide what's constitutional and what's not. And so that was the tension that was on display both days.

COOPER: But why would they want to not rule? Is it just politics? Is it -- why wouldn't they want to determine if something is constitutional or not?

TOOBIN: Well, because by and large, the justices -- and this is true on both sides of the ideological divide -- believe that it's sort of a last resort for the unelected, unaccountable Supreme Court to preempt the democratic branches of government.

By and large, they want to let the democratic processes go forward. And they only want to step in if there is absolutely no doubt that a law violates the Constitution. So that rhetoric of sort of letting the democratic process go forward is something you hear a lot in the Supreme Court. You heard it today.

But also you heard Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general, saying, sure, the democratic process is fine. But when it violates people's rights, this is when the justices have to step in. Four justices seem quite willing to step in, the four Democratic appointees. They didn't seem to have a fifth vote on that issue, but they probably had a fifth on the issue of states' rights.

COOPER: Jeff, stay with us, because I want to move into another issue that came up several times in the Prop 8 case and also in the conception of DOMA, simply out, that the state of the science on whether raising children in a same-sex family with a married couple is a good or bad thing or if there is not enough research yet.

During yesterday's oral arguments on Proposition 8, several justices and the attorney defending Proposition 8 expressed doubts about the scientific consensus on the subject, Justice Scalia citing disagreement among socialists, Justice Kennedy expressing doubts because of how recently the body of knowledge is, and the lawyer defending Prop 8 saying there is no doubt and no study that speaks to this issue.

We wanted to know, is that really the case?

Want to bring in Dr. Drew Pinsky, host of "Dr. Drew on Call" airing at 9:00 Eastern on our sister network HLN. Also, Jeff is still part of the conversation.

Dr. Drew, you have been poring over the research that does exist.


COOPER: Is there harm? Are children of married same-sex couples any different than children of heterosexual marriages?

PINSKY: The data is incomplete. They have a point. But there are good studies. And what's interesting to me is that they have great retention rates. The same-sex couples that are engaged in these studies stay in the studies over long periods of time. They want the outcomes as well as everyone else does. And every piece of data I looked at does not show any difference in terms of psychological functioning, in terms of outcomes for the kids.

The only sorts of things that were sort of mentioned were sometimes children were affected by homophobia, they said. I don't know if that was substantiated or not. They found in lesbian couples, sometimes the females -- this was just one study -- showed there was more same-sex experimentation in these girls' daughters, but no more identification as gay amongst the gay couples than in the regular population.

And overall the only thing that stood out as something that did impact on the kids was the status of the relationship between the couple. Were these same-sex couples healthy or not? And if they were, the data looked the same as in any other heterosexual couple.

COOPER: But some of the opponents of same-sex marriage have said there isn't enough data.

PINSKY: There isn't enough data. There's more study to be done, but, boy, it's not trending a different direction. It's looking like -- and there's a lot of good studies out there. And there's journals dedicated to this.

It's incomplete. It hasn't been long enough. I agree with all that. The jury is out, but the trend looks very positive for same-sex couples.

COOPER: Jeff, was it Justice Kennedy yesterday who seemed particularly concerned about how the justices seemed to be -- or how the kids are faring in same-sex marriages?

TOOBIN: Yes. And he said two different things, which is not out of character for Justice Kennedy.

At one point, he said, we have these 40,000 kids. Aren't they entitled to have parents who are legally recognized by the state? So that seemed a very pro same-sex marriage comment. But today he said, look, we have had one kind of marriage for 2,000 years and another kind of marriage for five or 10 years. How can we know that they are essentially equivalent when it comes to childbearing?

Justice Alito yesterday said, look, same-sex marriage is newer than cell phones or the Internet. How can we know for sure that there is no potential damage to kids?

Now, you may ask, as I certainly think the cynical among us may ask, are they really concerned about kids or are they just looking for an excuse to maintain the discrimination against gay people? That's a question that is certainly below the surface here.

COOPER: Because on the face of it, this case is not about children, although obviously justices and courts have to be concerned about the welfare of kids. But this is about whether or not couples can get married. Why are the justices going beyond that in these discussions?

TOOBIN: Well, because one reason marriage exists and one reason marriage has been defined as between man and a woman has been that this is how the children come into the world, historically. This is -- the procreation is a big part of marriage.

And the opponent -- the opponents of Proposition 8, the supporters of same-sex marriage, say, wait a second, gay people have children, gay people are good parents. They should not be denied the legal status that we give to all the other parents who want to be married in the world.

COOPER: Dr. Drew, is stability in these studies the key, that's what's key for kids?

PINSKY: Health of the relationship, health of the couple. And if kids need one thing, we know they need to feel safe, they need to be sustained over time in a stable environment.

And if you're creating any stability -- instability -- I like the idea of a skim milk marriage -- that seems rather unstable. There's some uncertainty there. That always goes against kids. So it's very hard to argue. Looking at the trend being very positive, and the -- what we know about what kids need, it's a hard area to attack.

We need to study it. There's no doubt. We need more data. But the data is certainly not looking like we're going to see anything glaring.

COOPER: Dr. Drew, good to have you on, Jeff Toobin as well. I know it's been a long day. Jeff, thanks.

This is all taking place with public opinion and public sentiment shifting, as you know, in favor of accepting same-sex marriage, not everywhere, but national polls. However, there remains a very high- profile, big-money bastion of silence on the subject, professional sports. The number of openly gay players in pro baseball, basketball and football now stands at precisely zero, not one active player.


BRENDON AYANBADEJO, BALTIMORE RAVENS: We're behind society as a whole in the NFL locker room. And society is way ahead of us, so the majority of Americans, we are ready, but I think we're not here to do what's popular or do what the majority of people think is right.


COOPER: That's the Baltimore Ravens' Brendon Ayanbadejo, who is a leading advocate on LGBT issues and spoke at a rally outside the Supreme Court.

He says he expects the first openly gay player will not be in the NFL, but maybe in Major League Baseball.

Joining me is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe.

Chris, good to have you on the program.

What do you make, first of all, of what's happening at the court this week?

CHRIS KLUWE, MINNESOTA VIKINGS: Well, I think it's kind of unfortunate that the Supreme Court is moving away from this idea of making a sweeping statement here, because they have a perfect chance to show that American citizens who pay their taxes, who serve in our military and who are being discriminated against should no longer be discriminated against.

COOPER: It's interesting, though. The barriers for gay Americans and lesbian Americans are coming down on a lot of different fronts, marriage, military service. But we don't really see that happening in major sports.

And I want to play -- well, actually, why do you think that is? Why do you think there hasn't been an openly gay player in the NFL or National Basketball Association or Major League Baseball?

KLUWE: Well, it's just because the window of opportunity to play is so short, that you don't want to risk any sort of distraction that could keep you from keeping that job. It's very tough to make it to the professional leagues in the first place. And anything that lowers that possibility, guys are going to avoid.

COOPER: I'm interested in why you have been so vocal on this issue, because you don't see a lot of players coming forward and speaking out on this issue, straight players who are taking a very public stand on this. What was your evolution on this?

KLUWE: Well, I have always been raised to treat other people the way I would like to be treated. It's a fairly simple philosophy. A lot of religions have it as a core tenet.

And to me, it was the fact that people are not being treated fairly. If I am free to marry my wife and to raise my children, why are other people not free to do the same thing? That's what America is founded on, freedom to live your own life.

COOPER: How do you think a sports figure, somebody on a team credible, would fare if they did come out, if they did say they were gay?

KLUWE: I think there would be support within the locker room. There would probably be a couple guys who wouldn't get it, but that's just like society at large. There are people who never will get it and you pretty much just have to wait for hem to grow old and die off.

But I think the players would be OK with it. The fans would probably take a little while to come around to it, but at the end of the day, I think it would be fine. COOPER: There was one potential NFL player, prospective player who was -- recently came forward and said he had been asked about whether he dated, whether he had a girlfriend by people who were scouting him. Did that surprise you?

KLUWE: It doesn't really surprise me from the standpoint that NFL teams are almost pathological in their need for information, because they want to make sure there are no surprises. They want to make sure there is no distractions to the team, to the chemistry.

And so from that standpoint, I can see why they're asking the question. That being said, the question shouldn't be asked, because the players are in a very vulnerable position, because they are relying on the team to give them a job. And that gives the teams a lot of power over what they can expect from the player. So I think that's something that should be off-limits in future combines and draft processes. And I think the commissioner is probably going to make sure that's the case.

COOPER: CBS Sports is reporting that an NFL player is rumored to be on the verge of coming out. What would be your advice be to that person?

KLUWE: Just stay true to yourself and realize that you have allies within the league and outside of the league.

Like I said earlier, there are always going to be people who don't get it, but more and more people are getting it and realizing that this is a matter of being free to live your own life without the oppression of someone else.

COOPER: Chris Kluwe, it's good to have you on. Thank you so much.

KLUWE: Yes, thank you for having me.

COOPER: All right.

Let us know what you think. Follow me on Twitter right now @AndersonCooper. What do you think about the arguments in DOMA today? What do you think the court is going to do?

We're going to take you next to the shakiest piece of land in the country right now. It's simply incredible, cliffside property minus a chunk of the cliff. Look at that home literally on the edge of a disaster no one fully understands, no one can really stop. We're tell you where it is.

And later, the Southern California killer ex-cop. There was a $1 million award for getting Christopher Dorner. Authorities got him. So why aren't the people who helped getting him getting the money? The answer is ahead.


COOPER: Tonight, a place that is normally pretty close to paradise is on the brink of disaster, in some places literally over the edge.

Cliffside property on an exclusive island near Seattle sliding tonight into the Puget Sound. Take a look at these images. One home has already gone down. More than a dozen others now are on very shaky ground. Residents have been evacuated. No one has been hurt, thankfully.

It could have been much worse. The landslide began around 4:00 a.m. People heard what sounded like thunder, they said. However, the cause remains a mystery. The area is prone to landslides. They haven't had rain in days.

Jamie Lynn from CNN affiliate KOMO joins us NOW from Washington's Whidbey Island.

What is the latest there, Jamie?

JAMIE LYNN, KOMO REPORTER: Well, Anderson, this landslide is just massive. It's over 700 feet wide. And officials say this is normal for this time of year, but they tell me it's the largest landslide they have seen in their career here in Washington state.

I'm going to step out of the way. I want you to take a look at one of the homes that was evacuated along the ridge here. You can see we have got the caution tape out front. You can also see Puget Sound right behind that house. The problem is, there used to be a backyard there, Anderson. Now 75 to 80 feet of that backyard has fallen down that landslide.

COOPER: Do they have any idea what caused this?

LYNN: Yes.

We spoke with a landslide geologist, and he works here for Washington state. He says he thinks it's a rotational landslide. He says it's possible that the land in this area has been moving for several months, several years. It could be happening all the time. He thinks that is what led to this giant landslide. Again, it's over 700 feet wide.

And we have got dozens of people that have been evacuated. They're worried about what they're going to come home to.

COOPER: Is there anything they can do -- this may be a dumb question -- but to shore up the cliffside?

LYNN: Right now, no.

That's why they have all this entire area evacuated. They just want people to stay away. They want to keep them safe. I was out here all afternoon with my photographer. We watched the rock fall and it continued to fall, large clumps of rock. So it's pretty scary out here.

COOPER: It's incredible.

Jamie, I appreciate your reporting. Thanks.

As we look at more of those images, we're joined on the phone by the local fire chief, Ed Hartin, and by Keven Graves, one of the evacuated islanders.

Ed, how many people, how many homes right now are affected?

ED HARTIN, CENTRAL WHIDBEY ISLAND FIRE CHIEF: Well, during the day, we evacuated 34 homes on Driftwood and Fircrest.

And of that, the more difficult evacuation was down on Driftwood, the area that was directly impacted below the slide, where we had to rescue one individual using an ATV and then the balance were brought out using our marine unit, a rescue boat, because of continued slide activity in the area.

COOPER: And some of these images we're seeing, cliffs kind of -- homes just hanging over these cliffs.

You think it's possible more homes are going to be lost, right?

HARTIN: Well, we have got four homes that we're concerned with in particular, both down on Fircrest, which is down near the water, and then up -- and then up on Driftwood -- or down on Driftwood.

So there's four that we're predominantly concerned about. We have had a geotechnical assessment by an engineer working for the county, and he's advised us. It's still an active slide, but we have identified which areas are most at risk and we will be meeting to brief the homeowners in the community at 7:00 p.m.

COOPER: Keven, you were at home when this happened. What did you hear? What did you see?

KEVEN GRAVES, EVACUEE: Well, it sounded a lot like -- well, the thing I can compare it to most is when Mount Saint Helens blew. It was like something hit the house.

COOPER: So you could -- did the house shake?

GRAVES: Pardon?

COOPER: Did the house shake? You could actually feel it?

GRAVES: Not really. I mean, it was just like something solid just hit. It didn't really shake the house.

COOPER: How close is your house now to the cliff?

GRAVES: I would say a couple hundred feet.

COOPER: And I mean, did you have any real warning? How quickly did you have to get out of the house?

GRAVES: Well, I didn't have any warning. I mean, I was sleeping. But -- and I headed out of the house as soon as I figured out what was going on, talked to the local firefighters, and they said, you should get out. And it was -- so I couldn't really make an assessment. But...


COOPER: Have you been able to go back in at all to get anything else?


GRAVES: ... this afternoon and emptied the contents.

COOPER: So, you were able to empty some of the contents out.

Ed, I know this isn't a freak occurrence. Your community has dealt with this threat of landslides before. Is there a timetable on this? How do you know when it's done?

HARTIN: Well, that's a difficult question to answer.

At this point, it's still an active slide. There's still some -- there's still some ground movement going on. We have had a preliminary geotechnical assessment, but that process is going to continue tomorrow. And, as you mentioned, this is an area where this has occurred to a smaller extent in the past. And the ground is prone to movement in that area.

COOPER: Well, Ed, I know it's been incredibly long hours for you. I appreciate you talk to us, Ed Hartin.

And, Keven, I'm so sorry for what you and your neighbors are going through. And I wish you the best. I hope your house is OK. I appreciate you being with us.

For more on the story, you can go to

Just ahead, inside a killer's mind -- the troubling signs that were missed in the days and hours before Jared Loughner opened fire in that Tucson Parking lot. Thousands of pages released today paint a very chilling picture and a lot of new details we had not heard before.

Also ahead tonight, a million-dollar reward offered in the heat of the manhunt for that ex-cop, rogue ex-cop Christopher Dorner. The money is being claimed -- the reward money is being claimed, but some of the donors who said they would pony up the money are backing out. We will tell you why.


COOPER: Tonight we have a far more chilling picture of the days and hours leading up to the moment Jared Loughner gunned down 19 people in an Arizona parking lot, killing six and wounding 13 others. Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, of course, was shot in the head. In the 26 months since that awful day, we've watched her hard-fought recovery. Loughner, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia after the rampage, is serving a life sentence. Well, today authorities released thousands of interviews, police reports, survivor statements containing details we've never heard before. Just hours before the shooting, Loughner broke down crying after he was pulled over for running a red light. When the officer, who didn't ticket him, asked if he was OK, Loughner said, quote, "Yes, I'm OK. I've just had a rough time, and I really thought I was going to get a ticket. And I'm really glad that you're not."

After the rampage, Loughner told an officer who handcuffed him, quote, "I just want you to know that I'm the only person that knew about this." The same officer said Loughner pleaded the fifth reportedly -- repeatedly, I should say, in the patrol car.

Some of the most chilling details, though, come from Loughner's parents. It's clear they were very worried about their son's mental state. Jake Tapper has more.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): The most haunting thing about the killer's face, that smile. We'll never know exactly what Jared Loughner was thinking, but today the Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff's Department released almost 3,000 pages of documents from their investigation. And they paint a picture of a man who long ago lost touch with reality.

Loughner's parents told police he dabbled in cocaine and marijuana. And that he'd once owned a shotgun.

But upon advice of school administrators, after he was kicked out of community college for an inflammatory video he posted online, they took that gun from him and hid it, along with an antique gun, in the trunk of their car.

His mother said her son never got the mental health evaluation the school recommended when they expelled him. But she acknowledged his behavior was, quote, "not normal. Sometimes you'd hear him in his room, like, having conversations. And sometimes he would look like he was having a conversation with someone right there, talking to someone. I don't know how to explain it."

Loughner's father said he was becoming difficult to talk to in the months before the shooting. One friend, who worked at the store where Loughner bought the Glock he used in the shooting, told authorities, "He would say he could dream and then control what he was doing while he was dreaming."

Another friend got this voice mail message from Loughner the night before the shootings: "Hey, it's -- this is Jared. I had some very good times. And peace out. Later."

We're also learning more about the chaos and acts of heroism that day after Loughner pulled the trigger. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' intern, Daniel Hernandez, who helped tend to his boss after she was shot in the head, said in an interview, "She couldn't open her eyes. I tried to get any responses from her. It looked like her left side was the only side that was still mobile. She couldn't speak. It was mumbled. She was squeezing my hand."

(on camera) And Anderson, just a reminder: Jared Loughner pleaded guilty to 19 federal charges and will be in prison for the rest of his life without the possibility of parole -- Anderson.


COOPER: Jake, thanks a lot.

There's a lot more happening tonight. Susan Hendricks is here with a "360 Bulletin" -- Susan.

SUSAN HENDRICKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, new court documents show Colorado movie theater shooting suspect James Holmes has offered to plead guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. The 25-year-old is accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 others in the attack last July. Prosecutors say they will decide if they'll accept the plea deal at a court hearing next week.

A grand jury has indicted two teenagers in the death of a 13- month-old baby in Brunswick, Georgia. The baby's mother says she was pushing him in a stroller when he was shot to death in an attempted robbery last week.

In Euclid, Ohio now, three police officers are credited with rescuing a man trapped inside this burning SUV. The driver was unresponsive after crashing into a building. He was charged with operating a vehicle while impaired.

Anderson, back to you.

COOPER: Unbelievable. Susan, thanks.

Tomorrow night on this program, we're going to air a piece that I did for "60 Minutes," I went to Botswana and went diving with deadly Nile crocodiles in very dark, scary underwater caves. It was a pretty unforgettable experience. Here's a preview.


COOPER (voice-over): I know I should be terrified, but the truth is, it's actually thrilling.

(on camera): Getting so close. Literally looking at it right in the face, staring face-to-face. The crocodile's front vision is not very good. So this is actually a relatively safe place to be.


COOPER: Relatively safe. Tune into 360 tomorrow night, 8 Eastern, to see the rest of that report right here on CNN. Still ahead tonight, the manhunt that had Southern California on edge for more than a week. One million dollars, you may remember, was offered for information leading to the capture of cop-killer Christopher Dorner. But now it's possible that money may never actually get paid out. We'll tell you why.

Plus, dramatic video of a pole crashing through the windshield of a bus. Unbelievable that the driver escaped. We'll tell what happened after.


COOPER: Incredible scene caught on tape. A very close call for a bus driver after a pole slams through his windshield. How he survived and helped the passengers after this is incredible. When we continue.


COOPER: "Crime & Punishment" tonight, the battle over a big- ticket reward promised last month during a manhunt that gripped the nation.

Rogue ex-cop Christopher Dorner was on the run in California. Now, three people had already been gunned down. Authorities were desperate for leads. Dorner, who was fired by the LAPD in 2009, had made his intentions clear in a rambling manifesto. You remember all this. He was on a mission of revenge. Heavily armed, not only with guns but also years of police and military training.

Dorner's killing spree ended, of course, in the San Bernardino National Forest, but only after the trail grew cold and $1 million reward was offered.

Well, tonight, some of the donors who promised to pony up, they're backing out, and it's not clear who, if anyone, will actually get whatever reward remains. We'll have more on that in a moment. But first, how the end game played out. Here's Kyung Lah.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Patrol 61, it sounded like one shot fired from inside the residence.

KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It wasn't clear just yet, but this would be the beginning of the end for Christopher Dorner. His reign of terror targeting and terrorizing California police and their families for days on end.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A burned-out truck near Big Bear Lake about 100 miles east of Los Angeles belongs to Christopher Jordan Dorner.

LAH: It was day five of Dorner on the loose. But now police had a solid lead. Big Bear became ground zero in the hunt. The mayor turned to the citizens of Los Angeles to help catch a killer. MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, LOS ANGELES: Leaders from throughout the region, including leaders from businesses and unions, government, law enforcement and community groups, came together to pool resources and protect our core value of public safety.

Collectively, this group that, by my office, is posting a reward of $1 million for information that will lead to Mr. Dorner's capture.

LAH: Tips came flooding in. As leads were followed up, the hunt moved into day six, and then day seven.

And then another major break. Not far from Dorner's burned-out truck, Jim and Karen Reynolds walked into their apartment and into Christopher Dorner's hideout. He tied them up.

JIM REYNOLDS, WAS TIED UP BY DORNER: Once he got us bound, then he went out to the bathroom real quick, which was real close, and came back with a couple wash cloths, stuck one in each of our mouths.

LAH: Dorner stole their vehicle. After he escaped, Karen Reynolds managed to call for help.

KAREN REYNOLDS, WAS TIED UP BY DORNER: And he left my cell phone right on the coffee table. Right there. And I sat down and was able to just scoot around and work with it and call 911.

LAH: Moments later, two California Fish and Wildlife wardens spotted Dorner driving. He crashed his car, then fled on foot, escaping again. Camp Ranger Rick Heltebrake was next to encounter him.

RICK HELTEBRAKE, CAMP RANGER: I realized it was Mr. Dorner, and I saw a vehicle crashed in the snow behind him and he came up to the window of my truck with his gun pointed at me, and he said, "I don't want to hurt you, just get out, start walking and take your dog."

LAH: Those shots were from Dorner, directed at fish and wildlife officers. Dorner sped away, but was forced to abandon Heltebrake's truck. He ran towards a cabin and barricaded himself in. Police quickly surrounded it. They'd finally cornered their target.

A local CBS reporter captured the scene when Dorner opened fire on San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are shots fired. Four or five shots fired.

LAH: One deputy was wounded. Another killed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But a short time later, we see smoke coming from the cabin. Later we see heavy fire.

LAH: Then a single shot from inside the cabin.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The information that we have right now seems to indicate that the wound that took Christopher Dorner's life was self-inflicted.

LAH: A nine-day saga, four lives lost, ends with a single gunshot and one big controversy that isn't settled yet.

Kyung Lah, CNN, Los Angeles.


COOPER: As we said tonight, some of the donors who promised to contribute reward money are now having second thoughts. They say that's because Dorner died during the standoff, the reward is moot. In their view, the terms of the reward weren't met, because Dorner wasn't captured or convicted.

In the meantime, two claims for the reward have been filed by the couple that were tied up in their apartment by Dorner and by the camp ranger whose truck Dorner carjacked. They say the calls they made led authorities to the killer.

Joining me now is John Miller, senior correspondent for "CBS This Morning" and former counterterrorism chief for the Los Angeles Police Department. Also Los Angeles city councilman Dennis Zine.

Councilman, to those authorities like the Riverside Police Department who say the reward money will not be paid because the conditions weren't met, what do you say?

DENNIS ZINE, LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCILMAN: I say we're deceiving the public. We can't promise something and then not deliver.

And the question is, if we make a promise, make a commitment, I mean, let's deliver that. There's a matter of credibility, a matter of integrity and honesty, transparency. In Los Angeles, we're going to deliver whomever is entitled to that reward. It's being investigated by the robbery-homicide of LAPD. When it comes to us, we will deliver what we promised to deliver.

COOPER: John, do you think somebody deserves that reward?

JOHN MILLER, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, "CBS THIS MORNING": No, I don't think anybody deserves this reward as it was constructed.

What you're looking for when you offer a reward of that size is you're looking for the cousin who's going to say, "I'm going to give up my cousin." You're looking for the guy that helped him hide out who's willing to sell him out. You're looking for the alert citizen who spotted the license plate or saw him in the line at the deli.

In one case you've got people who walked in and found out that he burglarized their home, and he held them at gunpoint and then escaped, and they called the police.

In another case, you have a guy who was carjacked by him and called the police. That's different than the intent of the reward, which was to incentivize either someone who knew information because they consorted with him or somebody who was a very observant citizen to come forward.

On the other hand, there's another issue here. And that is the credibility of the reward process. It's not this time. It's the next time they offer a $1 million reward for something, you don't want people out there, whether they're in the criminal element or the public, questioning whether that reward is going to get paid.

COOPER: So you're saying essentially, while someone may not deserve it, they should probably pay it out, just for...?

MILLER: Anderson, nobody deserves this reward based on that criteria, and they should pay it anyway.

And the fact is, that Kirk Albanese, the chief of detectives at the LAPD, has a working group with the 30 contributors there. So nobody is going to take that one big hit. It's divided up enough around enough organizations that they should pony up and pay.

COOPER: Councilman, do you agree that John is right, that no one necessarily deserves it, but they should pay it out, because of the detrimental effect it might have?

ZINE: There is theory and then there's reality. The theory is, no one was arrested, no one was convicted.

The reality is, the apprehension, the death of Mr. Dorner, took place. And if we don't maintain credibility with the public, then future rewards will be laughed at. And Mr. Miller, who I know from his time at the LAPD, is accurate on that situation.

But the reality is, we made a promise, we made a commitment. And every reward that would be published after this, people would question, are you serious or just trying to lure us in and then walk away? We can't do that. We can't have deception, and a lot of people would view this as deception.

The city council posted a $100,000 reward. We're committed on that reward. The million dollars came from a variety of public sectors. That's being reviewed. But we are committed to the $100,000 that we committed to, because we want to live by the word, live by the truth and live by the integrity. It's the integrity of the system that's in question when this issue then comes up.

COOPER: Councilman, do you have, of the two claims, one that you think is more deserving, or do you leave that up to others?

ZINE: We're leaving that up to the robbery-homicide of the LAPD. The robbery homicide section is investigating. They'll go through the process. It will ultimately come to us. We're committed to living up to our concept of honesty, reality and $100,000.

COOPER: Do you agree with that, to leave it up to them?

MILLER: I think, you know, there are 30 contributors, and the idea that they came together to offer it, and that some of them now are making independent decisions away from the group is a problem. I think that they should -- they should take the guidance of the lead agency here, which is the LAPD.

COOPER: John Miller, always good to have you on.

Councilman, appreciate it. Thank you so much.

ZINE: Thank you.

COOPER: Up next, big news about Ashley Judd's possible run for a Senate seat in Kentucky. She made an official announcement today on Twitter. We'll tell about you that.

Also ahead, a bus driver's very close call with a utility pole. Incredible images. He lived to tell about it. We'll talk about that. We'll tell you how, ahead.


HENDRICKS: I'm Susan Hendricks. Anderson is back in a moment. First, a "360 Bulletin."

Julia Pierson was sworn in today as the first female director of the Secret Service. She replaces Mark Sullivan, who retired in February. Pierson served as his chief of staff since August 2008.

Actress and Democrat Ashley Judd will not challenge Senator Mitch McConnell for his Kentucky seat in 2014. She broke that news on Twitter, saying she realized she needs to focus on her family right now.

Got to see this one. Talk about a close call. A bus driver in China did this: managed to stop his bus and help passengers after a utility pole smashes, as you see, right through the windshield. He reportedly suffered a ruptured spleen and is now being called a hero. Pretty amazing.

"The Connection" tonight: a technology that allows streetlights and other public lighting to be controlled wirelessly. It's the brainchild of Global Green Lighting, and it's being used by police in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to control lights in city parks as a safety measure.

Authorities are now able to shine 350 lights where and when they need them in a park where crime rates have gone up, and it's all done online.

The University of Alabama is having the lights installed to be used during school lockdowns, as well, as additional signal.

Stay with us. Anderson is back next with "The RidicuList."


COOPER: Time now for "The RidicuList." How many times has this happened to you? You go into a public restroom and you think, "If only there was some way I could control an alternate universe with my own pee." Well, you're in luck. At a minor league baseball game in Allentown, Pennsylvania, home of the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs, there's a brand-new video game in the men's room, a streaming video game, if you will.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the pee-controlled urinal gaming system. As I like to refer to them, the X-stream games. It's truly hands-free. There's no pushing buttons on the screen. You're a ski- mobiler, and you're going down the mountainside, and you're aiming for penguins.


COOPER: That's right. In this game your task is apparently to ski down a penguin-infested hill using only your own flow of liquid waste matter as the controls. I think we're going to need to see a demonstration. Take it away, intrepid local news reporter.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So this is TV, so I can't exactly demonstrate how this thing works. But we can use a ketchup bottle to try. Once we fill it up, you just step up and play.


COOPER: Well-played, sir. Well-played.

Hang on. People tend to drink beer at baseball games, right? Sometimes lots of it. Now I'm thinking a ketchup bottle filled with water is going to be the least of the cleaning crew's problems if this game gets popular.

But I'm not still not really getting the picture. Let's take a look at a commercial for the game from the makers.


GRAPHIC: Imagine. If right now...

You were controlling this screen

Not by touching it

But like this...


COOPER: So apparently this technology -- or technolo-pee, if you will -- is already popular in England, but the minor league baseball game is the first American sports venue to be equipped with a urinal gaming system.

Players will get to see how they did on the leaderboard. And yes, the high scores will be displayed in real time on various video displays in the stadium, so the entire crowd can see how good you are at peeing.

It's all fun and games, really.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before you think this is all fun and games, there is an educational component to this. Ads reminding men to check their prostates will flash on the screen.


COOPER: What could possibly be more American than a night out with the family at the baseball game, now with 100 percent more competitive urination and reminders to check your prostate? Bladder up, everybody. Streaming video games are finally here and on "The RidicuList."

Hey, that's it for us. Thanks for watching. "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.