Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

morganhilltimes.com

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#211
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody needs a permit to carry a weapon on private property, even in California.

How about when going to the private property, e.g., via a highway? I assume permits are needed for that?

Only if you insist on carrying it on your person. Otherwise you can carry a weapon, unloaded, in a locked case, in the trunk without a permit.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#212
post #98

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.

Thanks goodness (and Darwin) that there was NOT a mass shooting at Apple Park headquarters. I hope the employees that secured these weapons illegally are let go.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#213
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A private citizen of limited means paying a bribe is somehow reasonable because there's a huge power imbalance. Refusing to pay a bribe is also a refusal to participate in a racket. Local police can be extremely petty and extremely violent [1]. If a police officer told me he'd let me off for a bribe, I would probably pay it. I wouldn't be paying to get what I want. Rather, I would be paying to avoid the appearance th…

That's probably one of the craziest things I've heard. Never commit a crime to look a certain way because it won't look that way tomorrow. The police could be trapping you. If not they now have dirt on you. How in the world can you explain that to a judge if it came to that?

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the company? Seems like it was just this individual.

The individual was arranging a donation to be provided by the company, which only didn't happen because of the investigation itself. That is, the bribe would have been paid by Apple.

But it probably had no idea that it was part of a bribe. How could it?

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#215

Seems a bit odd that Apple's Thomas Moyer is getting charged or at least that the headline suggests he instigated the whole thing. Unless Moyer was trying to bypass some process or law to obtain the permits, it sounds like the county police are more at fault for demanding the bribe and Moyer just made the bad call of agreeing to pay it. The article notes that the county/police had been doing this racket for years so…

Those who pay bribes for non-essential special treatment are as much criminals as those who ask for bribes. This guy has serious resources at his disposal and is allegedly willing to pay bribes. One must wonder if he has paid any others. I have little sympathy.

> non-essential

Having weapons for your security officers is quite essential, especially for a company as high profile as Apple.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#216
post #98

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.

I also pay bribes when I feel threatened for my safety and the person i’m talking to has the tools i need for my safety and demands rent. The only people in the wrong here are the police .

We are talking about a high-ranking Apple executive who needed concealed carry permits. This guy literally runs a private global army. Let's not pretend he was scared for his life. He just chose to do what was easy for himself and the company (pay some pocket change) rather than take any possible legal route.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why concealed?

Concealed is the only option. California doesn't allow sheriffs to issue open carry licenses except in low-population rural counties.

In public, yes, but presumably that doesn’t apply to security guards on Apple property.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#218
post #6

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://youtu.be/yJqfNroFp8U

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#219
post #134

Why should Apple security have CCW permits? Why do they deserve them any more than a random person? They should not be able to defend Apple property with lethal force.

The need to protect executives with lethal force perhaps. I see the CA law only allows carrying unloaded firearms if you don't have CCW, which is kind of useless to protect someone.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any Apple apologists here in the comments. Who are you referring to? All I see is the fact that the Apple employee didn't initiate the bribe, the sheriff's office demanded it (extorted it) and the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe. At the end of the day it's bribery so of course the employee deserves to be ch…

"the employee was put in the unfortunate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe" ...or immediately going to the FBI.

Soooo extremely poor judgement?
Post reply on HN