Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

morganhilltimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by pageandrew »

kube-system wrote: post #235
pps43 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet somehow the 1st or 5th Amendment are applied across all states uniformly, unlike the 2nd.

States still have their own laws regarding legal procedure and speech rights, and they do vary by state. Those overarching rights are still a patchwork between states. Many states give protections that go beyond the requirements in the US Constitution -- this is completely legal and not uncommon. The Bill of Rights mainly defines which laws are illegal -- it does not prescribe what is legal. This is currently what is…

> the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Seems like denying some people the right to bear arms would pretty plainly constitute an infringement, no?

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

#292

Post by ummonk »

thinkingemote wrote: post #253
guscost wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never understand the perspective that “more corruption among gun owners” is somehow better than “more gun owners”.

Wouldn't it be a similar perspective to wanting drugs to be legal? Or do you actually understand and it's just figure of speech to say you don't approve?

More like “drugs should be legal for everyone rather than only for those who curry favor with the sheriff’s office”

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

#293

Post by ed25519FUUU »

xenocyon wrote: post #19

Kudos to the Santa Clara DA for being willing to prosecute crooked cops in his own county. All too often DAs are afraid to proceed against local LEOs and justice is left undone even when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.

Without the laws changing why do you think we won't have the exact same thing happen in just a short time?

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

#294

Post by gruez »

kbenson wrote: post #263
colinmhayes wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a cop is a choice. You can stop whenever you want. Race and to a large extent religion(lots of religions implore the congregation to shun those who leave) are not a choice.

Yes, being a cop is a choice. But not everyone becomes one for the same reason. Assuming negatives about everyone in that group is unfair and unhelpful to the people that are within it trying to actually enact change. In what way is disparaging anyone who is a police officer because they are a police officer any different than disparaging anyone that is a lawyer because of the numerous negative stories about lawyers?…

>In what way is disparaging anyone who is a police officer because they are a police officer any different than disparaging anyone that is a lawyer because of the numerous negative stories about lawyers?

Yes, because lawyers aren't in charge of enforcing the law, and even if they weren't, there isn't some sort of "thin blue line" where they're covering for each other.

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

#295

Post by temp667 »

eloisius wrote: post #268
jbuzbee wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've gone through various "International Training" sessions at my company and one of the things they teach is that if a foreign official says something like, "hmmm... your papers are invalid, but I can help you out for $100" or similar, you should pay and immediately report (and expense) it on return. I know one coworker who went through this traveling through a small country.

I had corporate training, annually, that said to do the exact opposite. We were not even allowed to give or accept innocuous gifts like tickets to a game without getting it approved by our legal department.

If the gift is to secure business this is likely true especially if the business relates to some govt or official of another country. Very strict there - you can't pay a bribe to get business or as part of business development.

However, if you need to pay a "facilitation fee" to exit the country (called routine govt action) that is not about securing business or getting a competitive advantage such as a customs waiver, then paying the fee may be permitted (for a number of reasons).

What I think US folks don't realize is some dept's overseas basically pay their staff through these unofficial fees, they set some rates for service, but nothing goes through treasury and no enabling legislation exists. But they also don't get money from their treasury to operate (or its stolen by folks above them) so that's how they keep operating.

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

#296

Post by wl »

mlindner wrote: post #215
sandworm101 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn't require a CCW. The guards could easily get exposed firearms permits. They need the CCWs to carry concealed and off duty.

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

#297

Post by iaw »

baryphonic wrote: post #249
paxys wrote: 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.

> 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.

California has the most stringent gun laws but also the a lowest gun violence death rate per capita.

More people were allowed to pursue the "life" option in the Declaration of Independence. The first item of unalienable rights our forefathers stated all people had.

What do you do when two rights directly infringe upon eachother?

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

#298

Post by gruez »

zajio1am wrote: post #193
stouset wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police officers choose to be a part of that group of their own free will, for starters.

That is also true for religious groups.

And? The catholic church is under fire for the past few decades for harboring pedophiles.

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

#299

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

ohazi wrote: post #119
paxys wrote: 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 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…

Baloney. The whole reason that laws exist to punish the person paying the bribe, even if the bribe was originally solicited by an official, is to force that person to bring it to higher authorities, i.e. the FBI.

This type of corruption is even more endemic in other countries and I'm sure many companies would find it easier to just pay the bribe than comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but that's why the act was written in the first place.

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

#300

Post by rjkennedy98 »

jonas21 wrote: post #130

Kinda reminds me of that time the Cupertino City Council asked Steve Jobs for free Wifi and iPads in the hearing to approve Apple's new campus: 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?

Yeah, Apple doesn't pay taxes, they sure got the last laugh.
Post reply on HN