The issue is that you don't go to jail for 'possible scenarios'.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Global Security Chief Cleared of Bribery Charges Following Accusation of Scheme to Trade iPads for Gun Permits
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except he thought he had permits already so just donation. But 1). Entrapment, if sheriffs office asked for an illegal donation, can’t prosecute 2) if sheriffs asked for illegal donation, shouldn’t they go to jail for solicit bribes? This whole case seemed fishy from the get go
Paying bribes is illegal, period.
This is a good thing, because it discourages curropt behavior in the first place.
Last edited:
“Judge Eric S. Geffon of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County found on Tuesday that Moyer had been in talks with the Sheriff's Office about permits for more than a year by the time of the 2019 meeting. By then, Geffon wrote on his new M1 iPad with Apple Pencil, that the evidence suggests Moyer believed the permits were already approved and would be issued soon.”
Fixed it for you ?
Fixed it for you ?
Could that be considered libel against the judge? Let me email him and find out what he thinks
The sheriff’s office was certainly the one at fault, but participating in the scheme is not right. This would certainly be covered in mandatory corporate ethics training that all Apple employees would need to take.
Something is missing from this story. I’m not sure, but I think they may not be allowed carry a weapon at all without the license. They obviously need to carry in this case. They may have felt pushed in a corner enough to resort to ethically questionable behavior. I’d be interested to know if they tried reporting this to the sec of state, but such a process may have been too onerous or they could have suffered payback from the sheriff’s office if it failed.
With the level of authority the Sheriff’s office has, I think it makes the ethics of the situation tricky for Apple. It is not as if they can just not do business.
Granting private security for a large corporation renewal of a license should be routine. The actors in the Sheriff’s office should face criminal charges over this.
Last edited:
These people are not “trained”.
They are police academy flunkies, and the last people you’d want handling firearms.
Apple should have to hire police if they want to have guns around.
Grey area if the permits were already granted, hence dismissal, was it illegal if there was no quid pro quo? For example a politician asks for an investigation into a rival and holds back aid conditionally on the outcome. Clearly illegal. Politician sends aid to foreign country. Then asks foreign country hey you just got your aid delivered, is there anything to this rumor I heard? Probably ok
Imo it's very risky to do this "deal" but going through the proper internal process (which what Moyer did) as Apple is a publicly traded company. If Moyer had nefarious intent as well, the "deal" would probably be done on the side, off the books.
And you know that how? There are many well-trained private security firms and private companies or individuals cannot hire police for private security. Just because you watched “Mall Cop” does not make you an expert on private security firms
Probably, but the judge has to decide based on all the evidence and not just "well, maybe he..."
I doubt anyone would take this as a serious suggestion; plus the judge is a public official and thus libel standards are higher. He could get mad, he could do something, would it stick is the question?
A lot of firms have highly trained staff, often former or retired police or military who are quite capable and professional,; they just cost a lot but Apple no doubt can afford the cost.
Anyone can train with guns. This is not a useful distinction. Gun ranges in America are full of people training with guns every day of the week.
If you are anti guns than no one needs guns. Most police in the UK have no guns. If guns have a useful purpose they can be useful to everyone who has the use case.
Security personnel in the US need guns because everyone else in the US has guns. Almost no one in Japan (where I live) has guns so security personnel carry only batons as standard issue. This is an Apple issue because it’s a US issue.
Security personnel in the US need guns because everyone else in the US has guns. Almost no one in Japan (where I live) has guns so security personnel carry only batons as standard issue. This is only an Apple culture issue because it’s a US culture issue.
SMFH. Why do you need a permit to carry a gun ? Real ?? doesn’t trample on your rights like that.
Where did you dream this up? Even if the text of the second amendment was misread by the SC to from allowing militias organized by the state to have arms to everyone can have them, well you know lots of people have guns,and use them in mass shootings (so much for the right to life). We have lots of police - shoving old men to the ground and cracking their skulls open, shooting people in the back (is it wrong to want accountability and responsibility for those entrusted with our protection?),and too bad we didn't have more police on Jan 6 when they were attacked and killed by treasonous scum. Been awhile since a foreign power invaded us, so highly unlikely, not worth considering. who is "THEY"? The super rich, largely conservative crowd backing tax cuts for themselves?
Seriously, your post almost made my head explode
You make the radical assumption the “random” people are untrained. It is a logical fallacy.
I guess we could suppose and what-about, all day. Judge ruled on evidence as he saw it, not some made up stuff
That’s … the “for me, not thee” part.
Sure you can apply. And you’ll be denied.
I got a permit in NY. It was marked “sporting use only”, made clear I’d lose it if caught carrying it for legitimate self defense. Literally 99.9% of permits issued there had the same practical denial: can have it but can’t use it. Turns out the judge who applied that restriction was involved in cocaine trafficking.