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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by anoonmoose »

da_big_ghey wrote: post #31
anoonmoose wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you said why not yourself. There's a lot that goes into being a bodyguard that makes it quite different from allowing random employees to carry.

I think this is a cultural thing that causes people in other places to worry too much about concealed firearms. I'm from Texas, where it's generally understood that there is a very good chance that any given person is carrying. Not just Joe Tough Guy either, there are plenty of old ladies with .25 ACPs in their handbags. People don't see it as scary or abnormal the same way other places do; it's just a tool that many…

At the end of the day, Texas, however you may feel living there/being from there, has a higher per capita firearm death rate than several large states with stricter gun laws and many countries with stricter gun laws, and I personally believe those things to be related.

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

#642

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

Zhenya wrote: post #611
baby wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in a place where you need a concealed carry permit to feel safe, you probably should move to a safer place.

The state will protect you.

I wonder if the other poster had feelings about the police protests?

That person aside... What a time for some people to hate guns and recommend how only the evil racist police should have them.

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

#643

Post by Grakel »

rhino369 wrote: post #536
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>States adopt this policy as a way of punting CC policy making down to the local level. They implement it as a wink and nod end run around the 14th amendment. The whole purpose is so that the states can play dumb when the towns "accidentally" install sheriffs/police chiefs who turn out to be racist and deny all the irish/blacks/latinos their rights.

No, otherwise you'd seem them in areas with high racial strife. It's a way of allowing rich limousine liberals to get security guards with guns, while denying the common person the same right.

Exactly. In NYC retired cops can't even get them, but bodyguards of the rich can. Not to mention all gun laws are infringements of the second amendment.

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

#644

Post by wonder_er »

There's a good book called _Police Union Power, Politics, and Confrontation in the 21st Century: New Challenges, New Issues_, [0] and it feels highly relevant to understanding how all of this is playing out.

I propose that persons who read that book will be less surprised by how these events will proceed than someone who has not read the book.

[0]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4982654-police-union-pow...

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

#645

Post by ip26 »

flowerlad wrote: post #379
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.

> Bribing public officials is a crime, period. In some countries, seeking bribes is a crime, but giving in to a demand for bribe is not. That seems fairer. When you became a public official you agreed to perform your job dutifully. If a public official refuses to perform his job unless a citizen provides him with a bribe, then it seems like the citizen was forced into bribery by the public official. How is it then fa…

I think the idea is not to hold the hapless citizen responsible; instead you want to force the hapless citizen to report the solicitation.

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

#646

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

Zhenya wrote: post #612
baby wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are putting everyone else in danger when you start carrying weapons, as an ex-resident of the bay I'm really happy that the rules are against weapons in general

How exactly? IMHO, sf would be a lot safer if the criminals would have at least the concept that someone could respond to their violence with equal violence. Today, aside from the slim chance of being caught by an unengaged police force, the cost is zero.

Are... you seriously suggesting that if it was easier to get guns there might be less violent crime?

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

#648

Post by ip26 »

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.

Since when was CCW a Constitutional right? You don't need one to carry.

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

#649

Post by kbhn »

hedora wrote: post #542
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.

After going through the process of building a house in CA, I believe we should decriminalize offering of bribes, but not solicitation of bribes. $100K’s of dollars (>> 10% of the total project cost) have been extracted from us by various bureaucratic processes that are outside what is explicitly specified by the law. I am confident that this would not have happened if we were well politically connected, and had frien…

> I believe we should decriminalize offering of bribes

I too would like to erode confidence in our public servants.

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

#650

Post by ip26 »

kbhn wrote: post #649
hedora wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After going through the process of building a house in CA, I believe we should decriminalize offering of bribes, but not solicitation of bribes. $100K’s of dollars (>> 10% of the total project cost) have been extracted from us by various bureaucratic processes that are outside what is explicitly specified by the law. I am confident that this would not have happened if we were well politically connected, and had frien…

> I believe we should decriminalize offering of bribes I too would like to erode confidence in our public servants.

It's become far too difficult for public servants to extort me, something needs to change.
Post reply on HN