341–350 of 1001 posts
Still, does anyone here know of a country, where artificially limiting resources do not encourage to bribes? Better yet, if somebody names a country, where bureaucrats are by law forbidden to limit the resources artificially, I'll strongly consider immigrating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way is equating the actions of some police officers with all police officers different than equating the actions of some specific ethnic or religious group with all the people of that group? If it isn't okay to stereotype based on race or religious affiliation maybe we shouldn't stereotype based on profession either. Just because some group has become the whipping boy of the moment (for good reason), doesn't…
I'll explain how, even though I suspect you didn't take the time to think about it. It's because police groups are a command and control hierarchical organization. They aren't some loose group of people that share an attribute. When police officers commit crimes, their commanding officers share the responsibility.
I understand it's cathartic to have an "other" that you can focus anger on, and it's extremely beneficial for those trying to push an agenda, and the police have largely brought this upon themselves by being so insular, dysfunctional and resistant to any change, but it is an organization full of people, and I'm hesitant to apply a group stereotype to all individuals in a group, for what should be blatantly obvious reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why give police the power to decide these permits? Power corrupts
Agreed, this makes 0 sense to me. There should be an explicit list of reasons for which police should be able to deny these permits, and the police should have to show their evidence as to why they believe one of these reasons apply.
IMO, discretion for this sort of thing should be with a judge, not a cop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why give police the power to decide these permits? Power corrupts
Usual think of the children stuff. Basically, someone who shouldn't have a permit could hypothetically get one and then go on a killing spree, so we need to give police and sheriffs full powers to deny them. If I remember rightly, one of the main things the American gun control movement has been campaigning for is the removal of shall-issue policies which require police and sheriffs to issue permits like these unless…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Soliciting bribes is explicitly against the law, and that has nothing to do with "may" vs "shall" issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why we need federal shall-issue CCW permits and common weapon lows. This hot mess of nonsense across the states needs to stop.
That mess of laws is an inherent part of our strong foundation in federalism.
I'm not alone in thinking that California's oppressive may-issue CCW laws deny citizens the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and would welcome Federal intervention in this specific instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between a bribe to win a contract or similar vs. the case where you feel in danger - e.g. you come across a roadblock in rural Mexico and an armed official wants a "clear up your paperwork" payoff to let you pass. That's the scenario the training covers.
Exactly, and it's clearly permitted to pay in that case because being able to travel involves routine govt action. I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.
Like issuing a concealed-carry permit to a non-felon ex-Navy corporate executive.
OP describes a ransom, not a bribe. Charge the govt official who demanded the ransom, not the citizen entrapped in the scheme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have it on good authority that all apple employees are trained to not pay any kind of bribes. Didn't realize that training would need to be applied in the states tho
That's bad training. If they are stuck in a country because they won't pay the $20 exit fee because authorizing legislation was not properly adopted, then apple are idiots. It will take one person dying because of this policy for apple to be sued to hell and back.