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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by zepto »

Reelin wrote: post #659
zepto wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s clear that this applies to uniformed cops performing duties in public places. It is much less clear that it applies to a private conversation with a senior officer in a police station.

> > public officials in the performance of their duties > conversation with a senior officer in a police station Are you seriously suggesting that conversing with a public official at their place of work about official business doesn't qualify as part of their official duties? (Aside, two party consent is a genuinely broken system for a wide variety of reasons. I consider violating it to be a laudable act of civil di…

I’m suggesting that an attorney could definitely argue that a particular conversation was not part of a persons official duties, depending on the content.

Attorneys argue things like this all the time. And Judges rule on their arguments.

What I’m asking about is whether any existing ruling makes this point clear.

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

#732

Post by agensaequivocum »

chmod600 wrote: post #719

Sincere (not rhetorical) questions: What is the reasoning behind CCW vs open carry in a holster? Is it to give some kind of tactical advantage to the weapon carrier? Is it about some kind of general fear people have seeing a gun (and if so, why not police?)? Is CCW considered to be protected by the second amendment? It says "keep and bear" which seems more related to a visible weapon to me, but I'm not sure of the hi…

Yes generally it is viewed as tactical advantage.

CC has never been held in court to be protected by the 2nd. OC has at the state level only I believe.

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

#733

Post by SwimSwimHungry »

rtpg wrote: post #730
SwimSwimHungry wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That is what is likely being suggested. A well armed society is a polite society. But hey, if you live in an ivory tower, why let the common folk have a right to bear arms? Doesn't that sound elitist to you? A certain someone by the name of Ronald Reagan (yeah... that guy... the one worshiped by conservatives) signed the Mulford Act into law to keep Black Panthers from open carrying guns. California's history on…

What about every other developed nation that seems to manage without a fully armed populace? If your theory is that Cali has crime cuz no guns, why do other nations in the world with stricter gun rules seem to get by without this “chaos”? You gotta have some other variables in there for this to hold up.

Wait, what chaos are you referring to? I'm simply stating that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution and it's wrong that the Sheriff is acting as some kind of gatekeeper on who should be allowed to exercise their rights, beyond what is codified in law. That's all I'm really pointing out here, in line with the article posted here.

Frankly, we could definitely go into comparing other countries and how they handle this compared to the US, but this is an entirely different can of worms I can't really do justice here in an HN comments section.

I may suggest checking out /r/gunpolitics on reddit, or if you're aligned with liberal or leftist ideology, I strongly recommend /r/liberalgunowners and /r/SocialistRA for more information. I frequent those spaces often.

Finally, for all the news does to point out violent crimes committed with firearms, there are numerous defensive uses of guns that occur nearly every single day that slip under the radar. /r/dgu on reddit can show you some examples there.

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

#734

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#735

Post by cptnapalm »

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 work in a library. I've learned though our ethics training that we can't accept cookies from patrons because that might be seen as bribery. There's a strange requirement to accept food: you have to eat it in front of the giver. So we can't take cookies, but the legislator can be fed by lobbyists.

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

#736

Post by baryphonic »

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.

The key language from the courts is "reasonable regulation" on the use of firearms. That's a bit vague, but "we've created a process to let you concealed carry, but we won't actually issue a permit to anyone" pretty obviously fails the "reasonableness" test. If the restriction was that concealed carry is flat out illegal, that might actually be more legally tenable than this discretionary nonsense in places like the Bay Area. Of course, CCW regulations that are clearly limited to safety and competence with firearms and limit the discretion of issuing officials are almost certainly compatible with the Constitution.

Just for the sake of comparison, the rule that was struck down in DC v. Heller (which firmly established that the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defense, subject to reasonable regulation by the state) required gun owners to keep their weapons "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" at all times.

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

#737

Post by agensaequivocum »

throwawaygh wrote: post #57
calvinmorrison wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I simply cannot understand why anyone gives a damn about this. Because I currently cannot get a LCTF from the city. That's why I give a damn. It is currently effecting me. I had no need for that before corona virus, I do need one now. Bucks county is issuing it in 15 minutes. Philly does a whole interview process which goes beyond a basic NICS check and they have chosen to be poorly staffed for a very long time. Ag…

> Because I currently cannot get a LCTF from the city... I had no need for that before corona virus, I do need one now. I'm not questioning that you really do need a LTCF, but with COVID and the protests and the election suddenly everyone "needs" a gun. So there's reduced capacity + HUGE surge in demand + severe budget shortfalls. It's not a conspiracy. It's just queuing theory. > Bucks county is issuing it in 15 min…

This is one reason why there should be no permitting, just unrestricted carry.

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

#738

Post by garmaine »

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.

> It also doesn't matter who initiated the bribe.

Well, it does make a legal difference as entrapment would invalidate the legal case against him. (I have no evidence this is what happened here--just pointing out a poor choice of words!)

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

#739

Post by rtpg »

SwimSwimHungry wrote: post #733
rtpg wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about every other developed nation that seems to manage without a fully armed populace? If your theory is that Cali has crime cuz no guns, why do other nations in the world with stricter gun rules seem to get by without this “chaos”? You gotta have some other variables in there for this to hold up.

Wait, what chaos are you referring to? I'm simply stating that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution and it's wrong that the Sheriff is acting as some kind of gatekeeper on who should be allowed to exercise their rights, beyond what is codified in law. That's all I'm really pointing out here, in line with the article posted here. Frankly, we could definitely go into comparing other countries and…

I was referring to your 'well-armed society is a polite society'.

All this energy put into trying to say that "increasing gun ownership will somehow decrease crime" is frustrating because it clearly is missing the forest for the trees. None of the explanations seem to apply when looking at other countries in the world.

And.... like.... nobody's wallet is worth another person's life.

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

#740

Post by jariel »

Sylamore wrote: post #723
crx07 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad. Whether it's legal or illegal is almost aside the point, someone can choose between either breaking some arcane, unenforced US law, or potentially spending months/years in some hellhole of a third-world jail or prison while the Embassy slowly negotiates a release. And in some places, that's assuming someone doesn't just "disa…

Every Fortune 100 company I've worked for has annual training that stresses the companies no-bribes no matter the reason policy. Then we get pulled over in Mexico with a VP with us and it's a totally different reality on the ground.

So there's a difference between paying off the cop for a speeding ticket, and bribing the Minister of Resources for a contract.

Most companies want you to pay the cop to not take you to jail on fake charges.

The don't want you to pay the M. Resources (or at least not officially).

International Conglomerates keep 'Sunshine Funds' - i.e. money off the regular books in overseas accounts for this activity.

It's part of doing business in 1/2 the countries around the world, literally impossible to do business without it.

Post reply on HN