4 ms·
The individual was arranging a donation to be provided by the company, which only didn't happen because of the investigation itself. That is, the bribe would ha
by jkaplowitz 6y ago
The individual was arranging a donation to be provided by the company, which only didn't happen because of the investigation itself. That is, the bribe would have been paid by Apple.
- giantg2 6y agoBut it probably had no idea that it was part of a bribe. How could it?
- thatguy0900 6y agoWho would have to know before you would consider "the company" as knowing it? This was a chief executive doing it
- giantg2 6y agoI'd say if the company was benefiting instead of just the individuals.
- jkaplowitz 6y agoThis was to indeed benefit Apple, by arming their security team.
- giantg2 6y agoArming someone for employment is under a different permit from the CCW listed in the story. CCWs would not benefit Apple.
- rkt88edmo 6y agoIt absolutely benefits them. Nearly all executive protection teams are concealing. There is no public concealed carry of firearms in CA outside your property without a CCW. There is no parallel professional license that will allow you to do so in public. This is part of what lead to this weird situation for Apple.
- giantg2 6y agoConcealed or exposed, you need a BSIS license as an armed guard (executive protection) in CA.
- rkt88edmo 6y agoNo one is debating that, and the BSIS standards are absurdly low and they are available to everyone. There is no taint in the process for BSIS issuance that has been raised.
- giantg2 6y agoAnd this article isn't about bribing for BSIS licenses, it's about bribing for CCWs. So if the BSIS license is the one needed for professional carry, the CCW is moot from the company's perspective. Edit: Never mind. CA is super stupid.
- zepto 6y agoHead security guard is not exactly a ‘chief executive’.
- jkaplowitz 6y agoAnd head security guard is very different from head of security. The laws attributing liability to the company don't only apply to actions of chief executive - Apple head of security would definitely qualify.
- jkaplowitz 6y agoThis article discusses the two circumstances under which US states may attribute criminal liability to a corporation: https://law.jrank.org/pages/744/Corporate-Criminal-Responsibility-American-standards-corporate-criminal-liability.html https://law.jrank.org/pages/744/Corporate-Criminal-Responsib... Either of these standards would probably apply to a head of security who commits the crime as part of seeking concealed carry permits for an Apple security team.
- giantg2 6y agoCCW is the wrong kind of permit for armed employment. There's a different kind for that. The CCWs would only benefit the individuals, not the company.
- jkaplowitz 6y agoMaybe the news article was being informal, or maybe they specifically wanted to carry concealed and not open. It still seems like whatever was being requested was on behalf of the security team he was overseeing as his primary job duty at Apple.
- giantg2 6y agoIt's possible the journalist was wrong, but I believe the BSIS issues the professional license, not the sherriff. Open or concealed doesn't matter when it's for armed employment - the license from BSIS is what's needed. So it seems this was for personal CCW. Edit: Never mind. CA is super stupid and requires a state license to carry a firearm for employment but would then also require a license from the sheriff to conceal it.
- jkaplowitz 6y agoAs discussed in the other subthread, CCW and BSIS would both be needed for concealed carry executive protection in California.
- 6y ago