81–90 of 1001 posts
Why do Apple employees need to carry concealed weapons?
Armed security is common at datacenters, for example.
The article notes that the county/police had been doing this racket for years so it seems likely Apple/Moyer would rather pay the bribe rather than get mixed PR of being a whistle blower (e.g large news outlet runs a piece on how many CW permits Apple requests).
I feel like the headline is misleading. The more straightforward headline would be that the sheriffs of Santa Clara county withheld concealed firearms licenses to multiple applicants unless they were offered bribes. It sounds like this has been going on for years. Apple's security chief was one of those applicants who paid the bribe to get the permit. But putting "Apple" in the title is more clickbaitey.
How is it misleading when that is exactly what happened? Of course "world's largest company involved in bribery scandal" is more relevant to people than "random town's sheriff department is accepting bribes".
Why do Apple employees need to carry concealed weapons?
I don't see anything that indicates his desire to carry a weapon has anything to do with the fact he is an Apple employee. Some people like to carry concealed weapons for protection.
> Santa Clara County alleges that Mr Sung held back issuing concealed weapons permits to Apple's security team, until Mr Moyer agreed to donate $70,000 worth of iPads to the sheriff's office.
Why do Apple employees need to carry concealed weapons?
I don't see anything that indicates his desire to carry a weapon has anything to do with the fact he is an Apple employee. Some people like to carry concealed weapons for protection.
I feel like the headline is misleading. The more straightforward headline would be that the sheriffs of Santa Clara county withheld concealed firearms licenses to multiple applicants unless they were offered bribes. It sounds like this has been going on for years. Apple's security chief was one of those applicants who paid the bribe to get the permit. But putting "Apple" in the title is more clickbaitey.
> A grand jury alleges that Thomas Moyer promised to donate 200 iPads worth $70,000 to the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Office in exchange for four concealed firearm licenses for Apple employees. Shilling much? It was a corporate sanctioned move. Very clearly. Yet you try to make it pass as a single individual that could have been employed anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it misleading when that is exactly what happened? Of course "world's largest company involved in bribery scandal" is more relevant to people than "random town's sheriff department is accepting bribes".
I think his point is that the world's largest company is not actually involved in bribery. It's just kind of there as window dressing in this case.
> Santa Clara County alleges that Mr Sung held back issuing concealed weapons permits to Apple's security team, until Mr Moyer agreed to donate $70,000 worth of iPads to the sheriff's office.
So they most definitely are.
What are the needs for concealed carry at Apple? For some reason this reminds me of Apple’s security team attempting to recover (by force) the lost iPhone 4.
On apples campus he probably would be allowed to carry just by the business itself, similar to a bank security guard. Off campus is where the permit would be used to carry. They wanted to carry it anywhere in the state where it is permitted for CCW holders, so that's the probably reason they applied. It also allows you to buy a gun without a waiting period (I know this is the case for cops).
At one point there was a court ruling saying that the waiting period was unconstitutional for people who already owned guns or had CCWs, but it was appealed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To protect executives and other high value staff
I think the contractors who do that already have ccw permits (they're typically specialist contractors not employed by the company itself, like Gavin de Becker and Associates)