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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by baby »

zbrozek wrote: post #623
baby wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd assume individuals who want a permit vs campus with concentrated amounts of high-net-worth individuals is a different problem. I can't fathom why anyone would want to live in a place where they themselves need a CCW permit to feel safe.

It seems likely that different folks may have different needs or wishes or different circumstances and that "feeling safe" isn't the only reason one may want such a permit. I have an amateur radio license for no particular reason. I haven't really used it in a decade but that doesn't stop me from renewing. I could imagine folks holding a CCW mostly just because they can.

I don't think you can kill anyone with your amateur radio license though

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

#662

Post by baby »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #637
baby wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd assume individuals who want a permit vs campus with concentrated amounts of high-net-worth individuals is a different problem. I can't fathom why anyone would want to live in a place where they themselves need a CCW permit to feel safe.

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Personally. I don’t want to live in a place where people are expecting fire. A CCW isn’t about “feeling” safe. It’s about recognizing that the police/government might not be able to protect you (and has no duty to) if you need it. It is your civil right to keep and bear arms. I’m not sure you would buy the your own argument if it was on any other right besides guns.

can you kill someone with a fire extinguisher?

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

#663

Post by creato »

hedora wrote: post #602
User23 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know an urban county in California where it's an open secret that one can greatly increase one's chance of having a carry permit approved by making the maximum allowed contribution to the sheriff's reelection campaign. This kind of reminds me of the UC admissions bribery scandal. There are legally approved ways to bribe schools and politicians, so if one is inclined to do so, at least follow them. But in both cases…

The frustrating thing in the US is that bribing the sherrif or the head of the university is legal, but bribing the low level paper stamper is illegal. That provides huge incentives for the most corrupt to rise to control the institutions they’re supposedly policing.

I don't think these are the same thing. Donating to the Sherriff's reelection campaign is a lot closer to a bribe than donating to a university, because the Sherriff is benefiting personally a lot more than the head of a university is from a donation to the school.

It would be more analogous if the donations were somehow made to the Sherriff department's budget.

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

#664

Post by andrewflnr »

baby wrote: post #662
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Personally. I don’t want to live in a place where people are expecting fire. A CCW isn’t about “feeling” safe. It’s about recognizing that the police/government might not be able to protect you (and has no duty to) if you need it. It is your civil right to keep and bear arms. I’m not sure you would buy the your own argument if it was on any other right besides guns.

can you kill someone with a fire extinguisher?

It's a little trickier, but yes.

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

#665

Post by [deleted] »

FireBeyond wrote: post #492
newacct583 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad. That would be conspiracy. No, absolutely this does not happen. Now, at the micro level it does happen that individual executives rope their employees in to fraud at their direction. But absoutely no "company" anywhere "advises" its employees to pay bribes as a matter of policy.

You are entirely incorrect. One of the largest mining, minerals and petroleum companies in Australia has it right there in the employee handbook sitting on your desk on Day One. So lets dial back the absolutes, huh?

[deleted]

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

#666

Post by bww »

Grakel wrote: post #643
rhino369 wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would retired police have special access to this sort of permit? The entire justification for it is that their dangerous job necessitates special privileges. That justification doesn’t apply to retired people. It may apply to actively employed private security, I don’t know. At least the reasoning makes sense, though.

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

#667

Post by Grakel »

bww wrote: post #666
Grakel wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would retired police have special access to this sort of permit? The entire justification for it is that their dangerous job necessitates special privileges. That justification doesn’t apply to retired people. It may apply to actively employed private security, I don’t know. At least the reasoning makes sense, though.

Good question. I believe if anyone would be qualified for a permit, it would be them. Not that they should receive special access. The current system isn't based on qualification, but on privilege.

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

#668

Post by will4274 »

outworlder wrote: post #404
ineedasername wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And calling asset forfeiture "theft" is quite an extreme interpretation when it's mostly legitimate seizures from criminal enterprises (especially the drug trade).

Not really, it's really theft. Were it not theft, the property would only be confiscated at the end of legal proceedings, IF it turned out it was related to the crime in question, IF the person was convicted. If those conditions did not hold, the assets should be returned. In actuality, no crime is required for the property to be confiscated. It can be as simple as carrying a "substantial" amount of money in your per…

Hard disagree on principle. We have two types of court - criminal for locking people up, and civil for dealing with money. For locking people up, we require beyond a reasonable doubt. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted and all that. For taking somebody's money, we require it to more likely than not (preponderance of evidence) be the correct result. You call this a "low bar" but it's the same bar for a dispute between individuals. We say - it's only money - we should choose the result we believe to be the most correct, not err on the side of protecting the innocent even if it means letting many more guilty people go free. Why should the state be barred from using both courts?

The parents in that news story knew that kid was selling drugs. They smelled it; they saw the money and the clothes and the car; they got helped out on the bills. 9 times out of 10, they are guilty as hell. But it's not 10 times out of 10, so we only take the house the drugs were sold out of, not lock them up.

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

#669

Post by acomjean »

15155 wrote: post #579
acomjean wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at a defense contractor. We didn't have security guards that were armed. It was hard to get into the facility, but still.

Did the CEO of that defense contractor ever come around? He probably had a protection team, as do most individuals in similar circumstances. Cook, Zuckerberg, et al. have private armed security.

I think he came around once for a talk, but I didn't notice anything. I forget his name actually. Generally they kept the higher ups away from us in a different location.

The Defense industry isn't particularly flashy.

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

#670

Post by Reelin »

ip26 wrote: post #648
baryphonic wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Unless your state is open carry you do in fact need a permit to carry in public. In fact, some open carry states (ex Texas) still require a permit to do so.

I'm always frustrated but amused at how uninformed many of my fellow Americans are about the gun laws here (frequently it's the ones pushing for additional laws).

Post reply on HN