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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by Camillo »

Ice_cream_suit wrote: post #472
Alex3917 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A high-level exec at one of the world's most powerful companies paying off a local LEO for a permit instead of, IDK, contacting the State or the Feds, is beyond inexplicable. The problem is that, at least in many jurisdictions, gun permits basically only exist as a means for police to solicit bribes. There's literally an entire industry of people whose job is bribing police departments to get gun permits. C.f.: htt…

A CEO I know (billion dollar revenues, multinational corporation ) tells me that: 1.The tricky bit is knowing the right amount of the bribe to pay. Pay a Senator or a member of the House too little and you have made a powerful enemy. Pay too much and they figure that they have a sucker that they can keep milking. And of course, you have also wasted a couple of extra million that could have been directed to another Se…

Don't forget lavishly paid speeches and inexplicably popular books of memoirs.

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

#762

Post by antpls »

tesmar2 wrote: post #571
antpls wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is simply not true. There is no need for concealed carry in France nor UK, for example. Even the Wikipedia article on the topic lists numerous scientific studies showing that the effectiveness of concealed carry varies in place and time, and that there is almost no link between concealed carry and lower crime rates : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_Unite...

Tell that to the poor souls at Charlie Hebdo.

Homicide rates are publicly available per country by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

The homicide rate for USA is 5 per 100 000 hab in 2018. For France, it is 1.2

You are 3 times more likely to die in USA than in France from an homicide

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

#763

Post by will4274 »

geofft wrote: post #718
will4274 wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A man breaks into my house and steals my television. A few days later, the police find someone sort of matching the description I give with a few hundred dollars cash in his wallet. He has an alibi, though not very solid proof, and a few details don't line up. The jury doesn't convict him. Am I entitled to the money out of his wallet on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard? It's only money.

Yes. You can sue somebody for stealing from you in civil xourt even if they are found not guilty (or more commonly, not proesecuted) for theft in criminal court and win. It happens all the time.

Edit: see e.g. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-thef...

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

#764

Post by TaylorAlexander »

simonh wrote: post #651
sokoloff wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One rule for me, another for thee...

Er, no. Different laws at different times. If CC were made illegal, it would be illegal for her too. Or is she actually advocating for different laws for different people?

What do you do when you want it to be legal for some people and illegal for other people? Make an opaque approval process and don’t approve very many people. My understanding based on some details I heard a few years ago (so I am no expert) is that this is exactly what happened.

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

#765

Post by couchand »

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.

> Not to mention all gun laws are infringements of the second amendment.

This is phrased like a legal argument but it's missing all the important parts.

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

#766

Post by mlindner »

baby wrote: post #590
floren wrote: post #479

Concealed carry permits in California are the literal definition of privilege, "private law". If you're famous, rich, or the sheriff's friend, you can get one. Otherwise, you can pay a couple hundred bucks to apply and get told no. Rules for thee but not for me.

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

It's got nothing to do with "feeling safe". It's such a poor form of rhetoric that's completely disingenuous. You should stop using it.

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

#767

Post by appleflaxen »

wl wrote: post #274
throwawaygh wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A high-level exec at one of the world's most powerful companies paying off a local LEO for a permit instead of, IDK, contacting the State or the Feds, is beyond inexplicable. The State or the Feds don't issue CCWs in California. Chief local law enforcement officers only, which means sheriffs and police chiefs.

The crime is bribery, which determines the jurisdiction is federal.

Which laws were being overlooked by the bribe is not relevant.

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

#768

Post by sgustard »

baryphonic wrote: post #554
iaw wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Clearly the state has laws against murder. And California even has laws that "enhance" sentencing criteria for anyone guilty of using a firearm in the commission of a felony.[1] Also, "mass shootings" are also illegal and are incredibly rare. Also, I have a right to "property"/"p…

In what state won't you be prosecuted for murdering someone stealing your laptop?

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

#769

Post by qball »

542458 wrote: post #656
JKCalhoun wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just putting gun control legislation on the ballot is enough (see Washington state). The people of this country seem to want more gun control.

More gun control is actually shockingly well supported. 83% of gun owners support universal background checks. Even 72% of NRA members support universal background checks. It’s mostly just the NRA itself that doesn’t, and they control a lot of lobbying dollars. So universal background checks stay dead, despite massive bipartisan support.

>So universal background checks stay dead, despite massive bipartisan support.

The trick is that laws like this tend to contain certain types of other things that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

A reasonable universal background check bill is not going to pass if it also comes bundled with things like red-flag laws or registries attached to them, which then leads to "but they won't compromise" from both sides of the aisle, so nothing gets done. Or you get one side ramming something through which ends up defining "transfer" such that it actually criminalizes things like letting your kid shoot your gun even under supervision, which is very difficult not to see as an intentional act to degrade the culture of gun ownership merely because it is done by the people who constantly complain about the culture of gun ownership.

It's also a privacy concern if the system isn't set up properly; while countries like Switzerland have successfully mitigated those issues in the way they run their background checks, the difference between the average Swiss and the average American when it comes to gun politics (mandatory military service helps as does being a small nation) makes it more likely both sides of the issue aren't just going to try to screw each other over at the first opportunity.

Of course, the background check law is not one that is seldom if ever pursued (until it becomes politically expedient to do so), so maybe they should just enforce the law they do have instead of declaring the situation unworkable from the start?

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

#770

Post by bisRepetita »

mlindner wrote: post #766
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.

It's got nothing to do with "feeling safe". It's such a poor form of rhetoric that's completely disingenuous. You should stop using it.

What does it have to do with, then, if not "feeling safe"? Honest question.
Post reply on HN