Apple's Global Security Chief Cleared of Bribery Charges Following Accusation of Scheme to Trade iPads for Gun Permits

[MauiPa]

You make the radical assumption the “random” people are untrained. It is a logical fallacy.

No, random people are untrained. Are you implying that of all the people who get guns in this country that everyone is trained in their use? While many people are trained and have experience from Police, security and military, even gun clubs, there is little, if any checking, to ensure that you are trained to use a gun, to get a gun. so yes, the poster was correct, there are many untrained people with guns, its just that there are, I think, more people who own guns who are responsible and trained in their use, safety and care.

 

[Mansu944]

Of course he was cleared….

 

[genovelle]

I agree but the interesting part is that you find it fine that Apple has no moral problem with going along this route. As the old saying goes, we have established what you are, now we are just negotiating over the price

The fact is there are donations to multiple government agencies every year, so the request is not unusual at all. One possible scenario is another department the Sheriff heard about was able to qualify for the donation, but gad no idea how it was done. When Apple applied for the gun permits it crossed the Sheriff’s desk and he was like hey, I wonder if this guy might know how the donation process works? He asks and the Apple employee finds out and puts them in touch with the proper department to help him. Nothing to see here

 

[JosephAW]

Need a Kevlar iPad Pro case instead.

 

[nikaru]

What kinda exchange transaction is that? Why is Apple even getting involve in this?

Because you know..."defund the police" so police ends up being dependent on donation to get new equipment.

 

[Duane Martin]

That law enforcement body comes under some other authority or authorities in some way, perhaps for funding at a minimum. Be it city government or state government, some body has the power to stop or change the behaviour.

So you agree that Apple, the self proclaimed doer of all good and no bad, did the correct thing by going along with the local way of operating in spite of that way appearing to be very shady and likely illegal?

Your presumption is that Apple did not report this action however given that the sheriff has been busted someone clearly did. The Apple employee was cleared as acting appropriately in this case. Is it not possible that these outcomes are a result of Apple having reported the incident? I would argue, given the evidence, that is an valid presumption.

 

[citysnaps]

Hold on a minute, the accusation against Moyer is that he offered a sherrifs office 200 ipads for gun permits and the judge found him not guilty because he belived Moyers excuse that he was in the belief that the permits he had been requesting had already been issued before the offer of the ipads was put before the sherrif's office and that because sherrif's office did not take possession of the ipads before gun permits were issued, moyer is found innocent!!!???

What about the possible scenerio of Moyer saying to the sherrif's office, 'issue the gun permits first and some time later I will donate you 200 ipads'. Didn't the judge take that possible scenerio into question???

If you're really interested, you can read the judge's ruling.

 

[paulypants]

The problem is donation in exchange for permits.

There wasn't. Hence the ruling. Based on the evidence. Leveling false accusations against someone does not make them automatically guilty of that accusation. That's why there's a justice system, that in this case, worked.

 

[paulypants]

Hold on a minute, the accusation against Moyer is that he offered a sherrifs office 200 ipads for gun permits and the judge found him not guilty because he belived Moyers excuse that he was in the belief that the permits he had been requesting had already been issued before the offer of the ipads was put before the sherrif's office and that because sherrif's office did not take possession of the ipads before gun permits were issued, moyer is found innocent!!!???

What about the possible scenerio of Moyer saying to the sherrif's office, 'issue the gun permits first and some time later I will donate you 200 ipads'. Didn't the judge take that possible scenerio into question???

Maybe you should read more about the case????!!!!!!!???!!!!????!!!!!

 

[laptech]

I did read the whole report and the case basically comes down to this:

Bad guy 1: Give me gun permits and I will 'donate' ipads to you
Bad guy 2: 'donate' me ipads and I will give you gun permits

different routes but with the same outcome. The judge believed the story from bad guy 1.

 

[Krizoitz]

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.

You have any proof to back that up? You think the CEO of the biggest company in the world is going to hire “academy flunkies”? Plenty of people with experience (say ex military, former or retired police, people who don’t want the high stress of police work, etc) work security for major companies. This isn’t a mall.

You also can’t use police as regular security, so your suggestion makes absolute zero sense anyway.

 

[Krizoitz]

SMFH. Why do you need a permit to carry a gun ? Real ?? doesn’t trample on your rights like that.

Because you don’t have an unlimited right to anything.

You might want to take a refresher course on the US Constitution if you think that.

 

[macintoshmac]

There wasn't. Hence the ruling. Based on the evidence. Leveling false accusations against someone does not make them automatically guilty of that accusation. That's why there's a justice system, that in this case, worked.

I was responding to the poster whom I quoted.

 

[macintoshmac]

Money talks.

I have a feeling Apple will end up becoming the very entity they were supposedly standing against in their 1984 commercial.

 

[Krizoitz]

If you are anti guns than no one needs guns. Most police in the UK have no guns.

LOL no. Turns out the world isn’t black and white. You can believe in gun control that is more strict than the US has but less strict than no one can ever have guns. Plenty of countries exist in that space right now. Canada for example.

If guns have a useful purpose they can be useful to everyone who has the use case.

Again no.
Grenades have a purpose, doesn’t mean anyone should be able to have one.
Anesthesia has a purpose, doesn’t mean you should be able to buy it at the corner store.

Security guards with guns and random person with gun are two completely different situations. Even if you believe the latter should be allowed to have them, it’s still different.

 

[I7guy]

I have a feeling Apple will end up becoming the very entity they were supposedly standing against in their 1984 commercial.

Why is that? Apple has to have a security plan for it's offices. It's a high profile company and the world is quite different than in 1984. Based on some of the sad recent events, it seems plausible there are people who wouldn't hesitate to try and shoot up Apple Park or harm the execs of the company, and Apple needs to be prepared for this.

 

[DanTSX]

You have any proof to back that up? You think the CEO of the biggest company in the world is going to hire “academy flunkies”? Plenty of people with experience (say ex military, former or retired police, people who don’t want the high stress of police work, etc) work security for major companies. This isn’t a mall.

You also can’t use police as regular security, so your suggestion makes absolute zero sense anyway.

Found the highly trained square badge

You can hire police as private security.

 

[DanTSX]

Because you don’t have an unlimited right to anything.

You might want to take a refresher course on the US Constitution if you think that.

Well now you are talking about unequal rights......

so will we see you at the refresher class.?

 

[citysnaps]

Why is that? Apple has to have a security plan for it's offices. It's a high profile company and the world is quite different than in 1984. Based on some of the sad recent events, it seems plausible there are people who wouldn't hesitate to try and shoot up Apple Park or harm the execs of the company, and Apple needs to be prepared for this.

Spot on! I was an engineer at an aerospace company in Sunnyvale, California (the middle of Silicon Valley) a few decades ago where a disgruntled employee who was fixated on a female engineer came in with guns and killed seven people and wounded a few others.

Sadly, I can see a similar event happening at other large companies in the area.

 

[macintoshmac]

Why is that? Apple has to have a security plan for it's offices. It's a high profile company and the world is quite different than in 1984. Based on some of the sad recent events, it seems plausible there are people who wouldn't hesitate to try and shoot up Apple Park or harm the execs of the company, and Apple needs to be prepared for this.

I was not talking about this incident in that thought. ?

I agree with you on security, but I would also like to think that when asked, State would provide security, or at least allow corporations or people to get their own security, without making "exchanges". Just my thought.

 

[jimbobb24]

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

Oh boy people go looney quick. On Jan 6 no police officer or anyone else was killed by the mostly peaceful protestors. One unarmed female protestor was shot and killed without warning by a police officer while non-violently breaking the law. One police officer died of unrelated causes and this has been known for a long time.

None of this is related to the issue at hand...an Apple employee participating in local corruption over gun permits. Which apparently are so hard to get even for security personal that bribery is on the table.

 

[jimbobb24]

No, random people are untrained. Are you implying that of all the people who get guns in this country that everyone is trained in their use? While many people are trained and have experience from Police, security and military, even gun clubs, there is little, if any checking, to ensure that you are trained to use a gun, to get a gun. so yes, the poster was correct, there are many untrained people with guns, its just that there are, I think, more people who own guns who are responsible and trained in their use, safety and care.

Cops who are trained ... you mean like Chauvin?

Many people are trained - that’s the point. The fact some are not trained is true - there are also cops who are not well trained. Also not clear what training we are taking about. How to use a gun - takes about 15-30 min. Gun safety? Takes an hour then practice over time. Marksmanship- takes many hours over time. Tactical awareness and use of force? I heard on the news police are terrible at this so it’s a low bar most people can probably overcome in a few hours.

 

[RogueWarrior65]

Thus proving that the May Issue state rule (as opposed to the Shall Issue rule) is not about what you know but rather who you know.

 

[Krizoitz]

Found the highly trained square badge

You can hire police as private security.

You can’t hire them as full time private security unless they become ex-police, which the OP specifically said they weren’t.

 

[Krizoitz]

Well now you are talking about unequal rights......

so will we see you at the refresher class.?

Nope, still wrong.

Think you have unlimited free speech? Try threatening to kill someone.

Think you have unlimited freedom of religion? Try committing a human sacrifice as part of your beliefs.

Think you have unlimited freedom to bear arms? Try buying a nuclear weapon, see how far you get.

All rights in the US have limitations because your rights and my rights and everyone else’s rights can and do butt up against each other.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that rights are not absolute. You may want to start with Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (the fighting words case) although there are many other examples.