Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it probably had no idea that it was part of a bribe. How could it?
Who would have to know before you would consider "the company" as knowing it? This was a chief executive doing it
Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
521–530 of 1001 posts
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#522The facts of the article seem to imply that the sheriff's office was blackmailing Apple. I am not sure I'd call this bribery, unless there was some reason the CCW permits should not have been issued (criminal conviction or some other risk). The Apple employee should have known better to agree to the quid pro quo, but I am not sure he should go to prison.
This one is tricky. On one hand the CCW permit is for the personal benefit of the person receiving it. If the company needed armed staff, they could simply hire full-time armed guards. There is no reason head of security at Apple needs to be armed using a concealed weapon. They are not going undercover to bust smugglers or whatever. On the other hand, the payment was to the Sherriff's office, not the sheriff himself.…
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#523Can'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.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Again, this is taking actions of a group, and some within it, and applying it to all the individuals. That your excuse for doing so is that "they are police" or "they are in charge" isn't all that convincing. Last time I checked, bigotry was bad in general, not just when applied to those without power.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#525This type of crap is why CA needs shall issue permits for CCW.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
NO - these aren't workplace permits, they are personal licenses for the employees. They can already carry guns on their building grounds without a permit. The company is stepping in on behalf of their employees for to get these permits issued to them as individuals, so Apple's willingness to participate in the bribery is on the company. I do agree that the police have done the far greater crime in the abuse of their…
How do you know Apple was stepping in on behalf of employees? It sounds like it was the Employees alone.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#527Earlier quoted context omitted.
California has the 7th lowest gun death rate. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/... California is 23rd in homicide rate. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality...
26th in homicide according to wikipedia [0] but what is your point? The 'typical' murder involves people that know each other and has a motive. Loose firearm regulations enable mass shootings [1][2] which are more indiscriminate. Everyone has the right to bear arms but what do we do when that infringes on other peoples right to life? I think it's a cogent question. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state…
Mass shootings are a rounding errors and should not be used to motivate public policy. Catering to asinine edge cases like that is why we all have to take off our shoes when we fly.
If you want people to murder each other less then you need to reduce the size of the illegal economy (mostly drug trafficking) so that those industries can settle their disputes with contracts and court orders instead of violence. Basically everything else pales in comparison to that type of violence.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arming black people is the only strategy for getting rid of the 2nd amendment that will actually work.
Not anymore. The firearms community is more inclusive than it has ever been. We - and I obviously count myself among them - see the racial disparity in access to arms as a key component of our legal strategy to get those laws overturned. Pretty much all gun control in the US is racist in its origins and usually in its modern implementation. "May issue" is a shining example of this.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, this sounds like it's coming from someone that lives in a country where bribes aren't commonplace. It's good that you and I both live in countries like that; but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common. From the other comments in this thread, it's suggesting that the CCW permit process in California is very bad and broken and these bribes have been an illegal method of actuall…
I used to work for one of the oil giants. They had codified standards for bribery, a la: "While we do not approve of bribery, we recognize that in some places we do business, they are an unfortunate necessity. To that end, we have standardized our practices to keep everyone involved as safe as possible".
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#530Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn't. You are misinformed about the tawdry reality of asset seizure in the United States. If the police take assets from you, you might think you get them back unless you're convicted of a crime. Far from it: you must prove the innocence of your seized assets to get them back, and good luck with that. That this exists at all is a scandal and a moral hazard. Seizure should be strictly temporary until a convict…
A flaw in the legal process to easy & rapidly return assets to those found innocent does not make all seizures theft. Neither does the moral hazard of having assets retained by local jurisdictions. An abuse of a law simply does not make all uses of that law abuse.