6 ms·

Soliciting bribes is explicitly against the law, and that has nothing to do with "may" vs "shall" issue.

• giantg2 6y ago
  Please explain how this same scenario would work under a shall-issue scheme? Edit: Since you wouldn't respond... denying a permit under a shall-issue scheme would require proof that they didn't meet the statutory requirements instead of providing the issuer with the ability to hide their reason behind an arbitrary excuse.
  • nl 6y ago
    > Since you wouldn't respond I didn't respond because I was asleep (??) > Please explain how this same scenario would work under a shall-issue scheme? It doesn't matter: Soliciting bribes is against the law. Everything else is just arguments about if a particular arrangement makes bribery more or less likely.
• kennywinker 6y ago
  Deniability. i.e. the sheriff can say the permit wasn’t issued because its at their discretion, not because someone didn’t pay a bribe. That said, even with a "shall" situation there are hoops to jump thru that can be used to set this same kinda situation up.
  • anigbrowl 6y ago
    You just get a recording of them soliciting the bribe. Not so hard.
    • zepto 6y ago
      Private parties recording conversations without consent is illegal in California.
      • giantg2 6y ago
        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.
        • zepto 6y ago
          It’s clear that this applies to uniformed cops performing duties in public places. It is much less clear that it applies to a private conversation with a senior officer in a police station.
          • Reelin 6y ago
            > > public officials in the performance of their duties > conversation with a senior officer in a police station Are you seriously suggesting that conversing with a public official at their place of work about official business doesn't qualify as part of their official duties? (Aside, two party consent is a genuinely broken system for a wide variety of reasons. I consider violating it to be a laudable act of civil disobedience.)
            • zepto 6y ago
              I’m suggesting that an attorney could definitely argue that a particular conversation was not part of a persons official duties, depending on the content. Attorneys argue things like this all the time. And Judges rule on their arguments. What I’m asking about is whether any existing ruling makes this point clear.
              • giantg2 6y ago
                Some states have exceptions to the 2 party rule in general, such as if you think a crime may be committed, or a crime from a specific list. This can apply to everyone, not just police. I think it would be hard to argue that a conversation with a CCW applicant in which you ask for stuff in exchange for issung a CCW isn't acting in an official capacity. The only person who can issue it is the person holding that office. Not to mention, the calendar/schedule/sign-in book should have a memo a out the purpose of the visit (the pretext he was called down to the station).
  • anfilt 6y ago
    however the official in a shall issue state is then lying on documents, by jumping through hoops to deny applications if they are not paying the bribe.
    • giantg2 6y ago
      And thus leaves a paper trail that you can use for a civil rights violation complaint to the FBI or at least internal affairs.
• Spooky23 6y ago
  Not per se, but Good luck getting anything out of police department after you call the FBI on them.