771–780 of 1001 posts
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.
Being an Apple apologist is one thing but being an apologist for corrupt government officials is reprehensible. I side with the underdog in this case.
I 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.
* seem ethical by not "accepting" gift
* give the worthless gift away and make the recipient be in your debt
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’s a reminder that most people think that as soon as the system isn’t fair or someone does something bad to you, it is now ethical for you to use any means to get what you think you deserve.
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…
Your link specifically calls out New York City. I could not find anything related to concealed carry permits and bribery for Texas. This indicates a poor implementation of law/regulation.
New York is a may issue state which generally/usually means a local law enforcement official will make a judgment call. Some have a blanken no issue policy, others sometimes waive that blanket no issue policy if they can be persuaded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you've been an LEO for 10 years or more there's a federal law that allows you CCW anywhere (without a specific permit, just some ID that affirms your LEO status). So much for equal rights, some I guess are more equal than others!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private parties recording conversations without consent is illegal in California.
I've seen a few people on here state this. I really wish people knew their rights better. Federal judges have consistently ruled that recording public officials in the performance of their duties is a right under the first amendment. As a member of the public, you can record your interactions with police without their consent.
You can do it without their consent, but can you do it without their knowledge?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or need. A retired NYPD cop doesn't need a gun - a bodyguard might. Often those bodyguards are ex-NYPD, which is how they got the concealed permit in the first place. The whole point is demonstrating a need for a concealed weapon, not qualification or competency.
The 2nd amendment does not require "need". The whole "may issue" concept is broken. Why doesn't California have a reciprocity policy like most other states? Not only can I not carry there, I cannot even bring the gun I have in my pocket right now into the state because it's not "approved" there.
To be clear, the argument that is being played out is not on owning weapons, that has been decided. The argument that is being played out is does the spirit of the 2A incorporate a conferred right to carry in public. History and precedent dating back to the early 1800's says it does not. But there is that tricky "bare" part in the 2A as the spirit of the law would assume that they were not just protecting the right to "bare" them on one's own private property, given the pre clause about people needed to be armed so that the militias had a good supply of armed men, to ensure a free state.
On a related note, I see magazine restrictions as a more direct affront to the 2nd amendment. If they stand, then it can be abstracted to the amount (any amount) of ammunition can be restricted, which means the most restrictive states can and will outlaw everything, but single shot weapons to comply with the letter of the 2A rather than the spirit.
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.
Ask New Jersey. They explicitly allow retired LEO to have CCP. Meanwhile the law is so complicated and it's so unusual for even security guards to get a CCP that they sometimes get arrested anyway even with the permit: https://reason.com/2020/03/10/new-jersey-security-guard-arre...