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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by cgriswald »

giantg2 wrote: post #353
btilly wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not have to provide the reason. Does it matter if the real reason is illegal?

If they solicit a bribe, one would reasonably assume that a failure to pay would result in a denial. If you have a recording of that, then you could provide probable cause that it was illegal. If you weren't propositioned with a bribe, then true, it wouldn't be apparent why you were denied.

California is a two-party consent state. It's safe to assume a LEO soliciting a bribe would not also consent to having that solicitation recorded. So the only way you are getting that recording is illegally. Depending on how you record them, you could be facing several charges yourself and there's no guarantee that anything will come of it for a variety of reasons. You might even be caught doing it, which could be disastrous. In short, it's a pretty big gamble.

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

#432

Post by rietta »

zionic wrote: post #425
rietta wrote: post #362

Unbelievable capricious enforcement of a may issue permitting regime, asking for and receiving bribes! For those who don't know, in many other States a carry permit must be issued by the issuing authority unless the applicant is disqualified for reasons stated in the law. The irony is these Apple employees previously could have sought and obtained certain out of state licenses by passing the tests and qualifications.…

It’s insane that shall-issue is not the defacto standard. If you meet the requirements (not a felon etc) for exercising what is unarguably a constitutional right your participation in said right should not be at the gov’s leisure.

There is an argument to be made that licensing in general is a poll tax. There is an equal protection argument against not recognizing permits issued to out of State residents who meet the same standards except for residency. Sadly, I am not holding my breath to see either come to the test.

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

#433

Post by jxramos »

thathndude wrote: post #389
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?

Thank you for posting. This is exactly what I thought about. Anyone other than Steve probably would have said something like “that’s something we can look into and explore.” Leave it to Steve to be like “nah. We pay our taxes. That’s good.”

    Steve: I'm a simpleton I've always had this view that we pay taxes and the city should do
    those things. That's why we pay taxes. Now if we can get out of paying taxes I'll be glad to put up Wi-Fi.

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

#434

Post by rkt88edmo »

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #403
mike_d wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was in charge of the executive protection team. They are armed because leaders of well known companies face constant threats and are kidnapping targets (Apple would obviously pay countless sums to get Tim Cook back safely for example). The Bay Area and New York are notorious for withholding permits because it creates artificial scarcity, and off-duty cops are the only ones able to fill the demand.

That's not what happened here though, there's no competing off duty cops protecting Apple's executives.

That's exactly what's happening. Just because Apple/the head of security doesn't want to pay off duty/retired police who have CCW permits because of their LEO jobs, it doesn't mean that isn't completely relevant to the CCW issuance situation.

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

#435

Post by giantg2 »

throwawaygh wrote: post #415
giantg2 wrote: post #153

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).

May-issue doesn't legalize bribery. See: the indictment.

Yeah, I'm not saying it makes it right. I'm saying it makes it possible.

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

#437

Post by rietta »

zionic wrote: post #425
rietta wrote: post #362

Unbelievable capricious enforcement of a may issue permitting regime, asking for and receiving bribes! For those who don't know, in many other States a carry permit must be issued by the issuing authority unless the applicant is disqualified for reasons stated in the law. The irony is these Apple employees previously could have sought and obtained certain out of state licenses by passing the tests and qualifications.…

It’s insane that shall-issue is not the defacto standard. If you meet the requirements (not a felon etc) for exercising what is unarguably a constitutional right your participation in said right should not be at the gov’s leisure.

And if Apple Security wasn't qualified in the eyes of this Sheriff's office then what chance does a person of regular means or small business owner have!? None, nothing!

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

#438

Post by zionic »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #45
n0nc3 wrote: 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.

Yep. Gun control legislation has deeply racist roots and the left hates talking about it.

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

#439

Post by giantg2 »

cgriswald wrote: post #431
giantg2 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they solicit a bribe, one would reasonably assume that a failure to pay would result in a denial. If you have a recording of that, then you could provide probable cause that it was illegal. If you weren't propositioned with a bribe, then true, it wouldn't be apparent why you were denied.

California is a two-party consent state. It's safe to assume a LEO soliciting a bribe would not also consent to having that solicitation recorded. So the only way you are getting that recording is illegally. Depending on how you record them, you could be facing several charges yourself and there's no guarantee that anything will come of it for a variety of reasons. You might even be caught doing it, which could be di…

Two party consent doesn't matter here. The federal courts have consistently upheld that it is one's first ammendment right to record public officials in the performance of their duties. As a member of the public, you are permitted to record your interactions with police.

Now, could it still end badly? Sure. If they are willing to break the law for a bribe, then why not take it further if they find out you are recording.

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

#440

Post by prvc »

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.

Apple leaders have spoken publicly in favor of such deprivations. It would be interesting to check whether the company itself has made contributions to that cause under the guise of charity.
Post reply on HN