251–260 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
These permits in CA are may-issue, not shall-issue. The sheriff can deny for any reason (of course they aren't supposed to ask for a bribe).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was going to upvote you, but I think even a private citizen of limited means failing to inform the Feds is an unforgivable offense against our society as well. Knowing about public corruption, and not reporting it, is tantamount to racketeering. No matter how much power you have.
There was a time when reporting malfeasance to the federal authorities was the obvious right thing to do. Now it is clear that reporting criminal acts to eg. the FBI is very risky; if the officer is politically aligned to the politically and societaly dominant party, and you are not, you're toast .
This is why gun rights organizations fight for shall-issue rather than may-issue.
I will never understand the perspective that “more corruption among gun owners” is somehow better than “more gun owners”.
Or do you actually understand and it's just figure of speech to say you don't approve?
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.
Governments do stuff like this all the time. In fact constituents get mad when they don't. The Planning Commission is considered derelict in its duty if it just gives away a building permit without getting something good from the developer in return (park, street cleaning program, extra BMR units, promise to use union labor).
SFMTA considers corporate philanthropy, coverage of unprofitable neighborhoods, and low-income discount programs when deciding who gets the permit to run scooters in San Francisco.
If it is bribery when a government agency asks a permit applicant to spend a bit on the agency's mission, then there's a lot more to prosecute all over the Bay Area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You never know... what? I'm a 2A supporter and a hunter, but I simply don't understand this kind of reasoning for why you need to concealed carry. The chance of you ever being in a position where having a firearm on you in public will make things better rather than worse is so ridiculously small that it just reeks of irrational fear. If you're that afraid of whatever situations you're imagining, how do you ever get i…
I’ve never had a fire in my kitchen, but I still keep a fire extinguisher. I’ve never had cancer, but I still have medical insurance. The marginal cost of carrying a gun is basically zero. If I ever do find myself in a situation where I need it, I’ll be glad to have it. And even if I don’t, the fact that random anonymous law-abiding citizens have guns is itself a crime deterrent.
Widespread fire extinguisher use dramatically lowers the odds of you dying in a fire.
Widespread gun use - not just the presence of guns as an option, but the assumption that guns can be used on the street - dramatically increases the odds of you dying because of someone else's gun.
Proponents always seem to reduce this to an imaginary heroic encounter where Random Shooter is stopped by Heroic Armed Citizens.
That's almost never how it works in practice on the street. It's far more likely that Random Citizen is shot before they can even get their weapon out. And even if bystanders are armed they either won't have time to do anything to prevent a shooting, or they won't risk trying to shoot one of two people who are fairly close together at some range, or they'll simply decide it's not their problem and the most they'll do is call the police after it's over.
At this point someone usually says "But this one time..." And it's true there are exceptions.
But they don't change the statistics, which are completely clear - more gun use means more random gun deaths, partly because concealed guns really aren't particularly useful against attackers who already have their weapons out.
You have a far better chance of survival if you learn some distraction and confusion techniques and/or fast self-defence moves than by trying to shoot someone who is pointing a gun at you at close range.
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 disagree. I dislike Apple's practices as much as anyone, but when the #2 person at the sheriff's office is the one soliciting the bribe, you have a problem with the police department that even Apple cannot be expected to fix. You can argue that they should have gone straight to the DA, and you might even be right, but the only way for this problem to get fixed is by cleaning house at the police department, not by s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your company trained you to pay bribes? That sounds...unusual, and not at all lawful (according to US law, if you are based in the US).
There is an exception under the foreign corrupt practices act (FCPA) that if you do as parent poster described (pay and report as such) then it is legal. Otherwise you are correct, it is highly illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. What an awful situation to find yourself in. With the law enforcement demanding an exchange. You have to gamble one way or the other. Either you report the bribery attempt to the DA's office, and suffer the retaliation that ensues from snitching on the DA's friends; or you go along with the bribe and suffer the prosecution from the DA. How do you know which one to choose? Are you sure the DA will side with yo…
> 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…
You're kidding me? You actually believe the upper management follows this shit? It's a checkbox to make sure you have a "good working environment.
You know how I know that it's some BS? Two of the Chief X Officers at a previous job both met their current partners at a job... they were pregnant at their weddings.
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.
> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period. Apple or no Apple, no one in America should be deprived of their Constitutional rights. I'm more concerned that authoritarian states like California can get away with depriving the people of our explicit rights under American law than I am with people paying bribes just to exercise those rights.
I’m not following your logic.
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.
The Santa Clara County Sheriff is not a state agency.