3 ms·
Who would have to know before you would consider "the company" as knowing it? This was a chief executive doing it
by thatguy0900 6y ago
Who 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.