Earlier quoted context omitted.
She had one because the anarcho hippie terrorist groups of SF targeted her and shot up her home several times. When the group was arrested/disbanded, she let her permit lapse. While I agree it sucks that some rich and powerful people seem to live by a different set of rules, it's not like she had a permit just for kicks.
My childhood home was burgled several times and death threats written on it. I was assaulted several times. But I’m not rich and powerful, so. I recall Sherif telling my dad if he shot someone, to make sure the body was in the house pointing toward the inside. That way he wouldn’t be arrested. So we were under constant assault, and if we tried to defend ourselves we had to make sure everything was “perfect” so as not…
Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
811–820 of 1001 posts
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#812Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this has American politics inside out. Red states are typically shall issue and blue states are typically may issue. To the extent that it's about introducing discretion as an means to accomplish a specific policy objective by stealth, that objective is gun control, not racism. An end run around the 2nd amendment, not the 14th.
Army and Navy laws, Cruikshanks v. US, point systems for handguns, gun control in CA are irredeemably motivated by the fear of giving black men the means to defend themselves and their rights.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#813Can'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.
A private citizen of limited means paying a bribe is somehow reasonable because there's a huge power imbalance. Refusing to pay a bribe is also a refusal to participate in a racket. Local police can be extremely petty and extremely violent [1]. If a police officer told me he'd let me off for a bribe, I would probably pay it. I wouldn't be paying to get what I want. Rather, I would be paying to avoid the appearance th…
That isn’t a bribe, it’s extortion.
As an aside it’s hilarious that Apple wants concealed carry permits for its staff while replacing the gun emoji with a water pistol. Just goes to show a corporation’s marketing is nothing to do with what it really believes.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#814Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > 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.
I think it would be hard to argue that a conversation with a CCW applicant in which you ask for stuff in exchange for issung a CCW isn't acting in an official capacity. The only person who can issue it is the person holding that office. Not to mention, the calendar/schedule/sign-in book should have a memo a out the purpose of the visit (the pretext he was called down to the station).
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#815Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. I think this wasn’t a matter of Apple or the employee paying a bribe, but of the employee receiving one in exchange for stealing hardware from Apple. I read the story as: - Head of security team contacts police to get concealed carrying permits for his employees - Police officer says “if Apple gives us 200 iPads, that can be arranged. On top of that, you’ll get $X”. - Head of security team agrees, signs of fo…
> If so, Apple was the only one paying, but the company probably wouldn’t have known about that (possibly, multiple employees would) If an Apple executive was the one running the entire thing, how is the argument that the company wasn't aware of it? What even is "the company" at this point?
Of course, that can change if it turns out Tim Cook knew about this. That would surprise me a lot, though.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#816Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now they just claim that it wasn't them in the recording. The concealment doesn't exactly help audio quality.
Secret recording protip: get the target to identify themselves in a unique manner. Such as affirmative responses when called by their name and nickname. A certain action others can corroborate such as a triple high pitched sneeze. Or sounds that are unique to them such as a cell phone text message chime. Combine the above for maximum impact. Present this to a lawyer and watch them work their magic. Good luck!
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#817Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is exactly right! When there's no clear set of criteria for a permit and people get denied for this or that or maybe no reason at all. Just try getting a (unrestricted) LTC in Boston, near impossible -- unless you "have friends". This is how LTCs (License To Carry) work in Massachusetts, it's city by city dependent on the Chief of Police. The criteria should be clear and contestable in court. Like it or not, it'…
I say this as a big proponent of the right to self defense on a personal level, the current legal view is that, gun possession in the public square is not a right, it is a privilege, one that can be revoked as seen fit by the government. What is a right, is to keep and bear arms, this means one can maintain possession of their arms without fear of confiscation on their personal property or property in which they have…
I'm not sure what you think "bear" means in "the right to keep and bear arms."
The Constitutional right to own a firearm doesn't mean much if you're not allowed to have it outside of your home.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#818Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not your opposition on this, just stating how the law currently looks at it, and citing the precedence that has been cited before, specifically gun control in the wild west. That being said, I am OK with it being a privilege if it were a universal shall issue. I would prefer that it be decided that it is a universal right, but I am ok with either outcome. I am not a fan of may issue as it tends to be a privilege…
You seem much more level headed and well informed than most of the people arguing gun ownership on either side of the issue. I'd just like to point out a small thing, that by calling the automatic weapons ban in the 80's the "AWB" you are conflating terms between the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (known as FOPA) and the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (known as the AWB). Pe…
I believe that I am level headed (at least I like to believe that I am), because I am first and foremost a pacifist but I acknowledge the logic that if someone is trying to harm you, you have a right to not be harmed. I respect devout pacifist and totally understand their logic, that the principle of pacifism is more important to them than self defense because violence flows from a few wells, fear/insecurity, despair/desperation, anger and jealousy. They believe to neutralize violence you are not violent against those that are in one of those states, rather one should be merciful on their them due to their torment, and that mercy is show in love for them and all people. I honestly admire that level of pacifism but don't know if I can ever get there, I get it, I accept that these are the primary drivers of violence but it's hard to be that principled and understanding while standing down the barrel of a gun. As VanZant so aptly put it in "gimme 3 steps", "Well it ain't no fun staring straight down a 44". I may be able to in a situation involving only myself, but with my wife and kids I just cannot see myself getting there. Thus I only carry a firearm when I am with my family. I used to be anti-handgun when I was young and would have been fine with a ban on them. It was not until later in life that I realized that people will literally, pick up a stick and kill someone else, so while handguns primary purpose is human on human violence, I realize that it is just an object and ascribing the violence to the object only blurs what we all need to fix as humans and that is man's inhumanity to man.
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#819Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The equal protection argument also seems incorrect to me. If this were the case, states would be under scrutiny for basically any discrepancy between their laws. Why should voters in Texas be required to show IDs when those in California aren't? Why should drivers in Wisconsin keep getting their license back after their 5th DUI when people in another state lose it after 2?
Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case
#820I spoke on a panel with Rick Sung, the Undersheriff who allegedly withheld permits until Apple coughed up the iPads. At the end of the event, each panelist was offered a Starbucks gift card by the event organizers. Rick gave his Starbucks gift card to me, saying, "since I'm here as a public official I can't accept this. Otherwise it would be counted as a bribe." Wild.
What’s funny is he still accepted it, but he gave it to you. Seems like he was either not up on his ethics, or he just wanted to appear ethical. He could have refused the gift. But not sure what California’s rule is, but I expect that accepting nominal gifts under a low dollar threshold is allowed.