121–130 of 1001 posts
> "When high-ranking members of a law enforcement agency are at the heart of a bribery scheme, it tarnishes the badge, the honour, the reputations and - tragically - the effectiveness of all law enforcement agencies." Yep, that's definitely a black mark against the people that have been beating, gassing, and shooting unarmed citizens for most of the last six months. =)
Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period. It isn't an "unfortunate situation" or anything else that people are calling it. It also doesn't matter who initiated the bribe. The employee, and potentially the company itself, absolutely need to be charged and prosecuted for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
So... There's no need to issue ccw permits for people to perform their job because people who need ccw permits for their job already have them? That is brilliant reasoning; you must work for the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you know which one to choose? In Apple's case, you could refer back to Apple's business conduct training program, a self directed online class which ALL of us are REQUIRED to pass ANNUALLY, and which states in no uncertain terms that NOTHING of value may be paid to a government official without prior approval from higher up, and describes precisely such "facilitation fees". And if the article is to be believ…
>General Counsel once created a backdated paper trail for a fictitious meeting of the executive team More on that Story?
Two things, to be clear -- 1) The sheriff's office initiated/required the bribe, it's not like Apple's head of security was trying to bribe, they were being extorted 2) It's Apple's head of physical security, not software security (since it's not clear at first) I'm curious -- if a county sheriff's office demands bribes, what is the correct legal course of action in the US? Do you bring it to county court? To the gov…
> I'm curious -- if a county sheriff's office demands bribes, what is the correct legal course of action in the US? Do you bring it to county court? To the governor's office? To state police? To state court? I imagine anything other than "pay the bribe" would suffice.
I have stacks of anecdotal interactions with local level police (both sheriff and police) that nothing surprises me anymore.
This article seems to be less about CCW permits themselves and more that a state agency is soliciting bribes for various permits when they realize the wealth of the organizations seeking them. > Requested $75k of Apple tech to issue a CCW permit to the head of security, etc.
Two things, to be clear -- 1) The sheriff's office initiated/required the bribe, it's not like Apple's head of security was trying to bribe, they were being extorted 2) It's Apple's head of physical security, not software security (since it's not clear at first) I'm curious -- if a county sheriff's office demands bribes, what is the correct legal course of action in the US? Do you bring it to county court? To the gov…
You could record it yourself.
I would go to the FBI since this is happening under the color of law, which is considered a civil rights violation. The ACLU should be interested too.
Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period. It isn't an "unfortunate situation" or anything else that people are calling it. It also doesn't matter who initiated the bribe. The employee, and potentially the company itself, absolutely need to be charged and prosecuted for it.
Personally, I chose to live in shall-issue states.
A related historical anecdote. The Mulford Act was the first law on the path towards California's strict CCW regime. Whatever your policy preference, it is history worth knowing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Named after a Republican assemblyman, supported by the NRA, passed by a 2/3 vote in a Democratic assembly & senate, and signed in by Ronald Reagan, all due to a group of Black Panthers protesting inside the capitol building while armed. Who knew all you needed was a racial incentive in order to make the stripping of rights a bipartisan effort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M&t=790
But I guess they all had a good laugh in the end, so it doesn't count?