Bribery charges against Apple's global security boss dismissed in iPads-for-gun-permits case The strange case against Apple global security boss Thomas Moyer, who was accused of trying to bribe his way to permits to carry concealed guns, has ended with the judge dismissing the charges. The case was brought in November 2020, when prosecutors detailed how Apple’s Moyer had applied for concealed carry permits. Such …
... I just had to do a refresher course about this subject (I'm pretty sure I would have faced disciplinary action, which is _not_ a civil court case, I can indeed be punished twice), let's just pick this paragraph apart (though I am not a lawyer, live on a different continent etc...):
The Register understands Moyer produced paperwork showing that he had gone through Apple’s processes for arranging a donation,
Which does not make it better, as those involved in approving this are now (maybe) complicit in any unlawful action. Even if I make a case to the relevant group in my company that I want to donate whatever my company is providing to the police or the city or whomever, if this action can indeed be linked to me seeking a gun permit, a building permit, rerouting of a pedestrian path past my private beach (or whatever) it is bribery, quite plain.
and that Judge Geffon could find no evidence that the donation was an attempt to hasten the issuance of permits.
It is a transaction that was organised between a civil servant (the police officer in question) and a person seeking a certain outcome. Does not look good for the civil servant involved. Even if it is a donation to the police unit not to the person directly (this was actually stressed in our training). If it was me, I am quite confident I would face disciplinary action (rightly so), and I believe that this would count as at least attempted bribery over here, which is indeed punishable by law (also in the US).
The Judge also felt[emphasis mine] that by the time of the offer Moyer understood the permits had been approved, which rather undermined the prosecution’s timeline.
Since when does feeling have anything to do with justice? I just listened to an interview of an attorney, who actually said that "unless you can be proven to be guilty you must not be convicted - even if you are guilty, and everybody is sure of that, including the judge". Nor should a feeling of "well, the transaction is there and took place, but I'm sure that it was in no way linked to the gun permit" make the judge sway.
Yes, I wrote "must not be convicted unless proven guilty" above, and the judge "felt" that there was not enough proof, so maybe the judical process worked out correctly.
"Mood is something for cattle and loveplay"
"Since when does feeling have anything to do with justice? I just listened to an interview of an attorney, who actually said that "unless you can be proven to be guilty you must not be convicted - even if you are guilty, and everybody is sure of that, including the judge". Nor should a feeling of "well, the transaction is there and took place, but I'm sure that it was in no way linked to the gun permit" make the judge sway."
Actually since most of time. Intent is one of the most important parts of many criminal cases.
In your examples, the core is that they're opposite situations. That there is a tiny chance that they wasn't linked should ALWAYS make the judge sway.
It's a PITA in many cases, as in this (I'm pretty effing sure that it was bribery), but it's the only way to have fair trials.
@AC you said it just Wow.
“Apple’s processes for arranging a donation”.
Why does it matter how he got them?
“the Judge also felt that by the time of the offer Moyer understood the permits had been approved”.
More like “Moyer understood the permits had been approved and he would receive them once donation was formally offered.”. It is not what Moyer understood it is when he received the permits before or after the donation was formally offered? I bet it was after.
So if it wasn't a bribe how often does Moyer make these donations or was that the first?
What’s the betting the case against Harpreet Chadha will not get his thrown out. Even though the tickets were used by “Sheriff Laurie Smith’s relatives and some of her biggest political supporters to celebrate her re-election as sheriff”. Sheriff Laurie Smith is not one of the accused. Also were the tickets used before or after Harpreet Chadha got his permit?
No Harpreet Chadha will not be so lucky as without him there is no case against the two cops. How can they have received bribes if you have not got anyone who has given them a bribe?
The police for soliciting a bribe, and the Apple employee for being willing to pay the bribe. Not sure about the legality of the second though it is certainly unethical and Apple should not be hiring him back.
The police involved should be fired and lose their pensions, but since police often don't even lose their jobs for murdering unarmed black men these guys will probably get a promotion.
The sorest ill that Heaven hath
Sent on this lower world in wrath,--
The plague (to call it by its name,)
One single day of which
Would Pluto's ferryman enrich,--
Waged war on beasts, both wild and tame.
They died not all, but all were sick:
No hunting now, by force or trick,
To save what might so soon expire.
No food excited their desire;
Nor wolf nor fox now watch'd to slay
The innocent and tender prey.
The turtles fled;
So love and therefore joy were dead.
The lion council held, and said:
'My friends, I do believe
This awful scourge, for which we grieve,
Is for our sins a punishment
Most righteously by Heaven sent.
Let us our guiltiest beast resign,
A sacrifice to wrath divine.
Perhaps this offering, truly small,
May gain the life and health of all.
By history we find it noted
That lives have been just so devoted.
Then let us all turn eyes within,
And ferret out the hidden sin.
Himself let no one spare nor flatter,
But make clean conscience in the matter.
For me, my appetite has play'd the glutton
Too much and often upon mutton.
What harm had e'er my victims done?
I answer, truly, None.
Perhaps, sometimes, by hunger press'd,
I've eat the shepherd with the rest.
I yield myself, if need there be;
And yet I think, in equity,
Each should confess his sins with me;
For laws of right and justice cry,
The guiltiest alone should die.'
'Sire,' said the fox, 'your majesty
Is humbler than a king should be,
And over-squeamish in the case.
What! eating stupid sheep a crime?
No, never, sire, at any time.
It rather was an act of grace,
A mark of honour to their race.
And as to shepherds, one may swear,
The fate your majesty describes,
Is recompense less full than fair
For such usurpers o'er our tribes.'
Thus Renard glibly spoke,
And loud applause from flatterers broke.
Of neither tiger, boar, nor bear,
Did any keen inquirer dare
To ask for crimes of high degree;
The fighters, biters, scratchers, all
From every mortal sin were free;
The very dogs, both great and small,
Were saints, as far as dogs could be.
The ass, confessing in his turn,
Thus spoke in tones of deep concern:--
'I happen'd through a mead to pass;
The monks, its owners, were at mass;
Keen hunger, leisure, tender grass,
And add to these the devil too,
All tempted me the deed to do.
I browsed the bigness of my tongue;
Since truth must out, I own it wrong.'
On this, a hue and cry arose,
As if the beasts were all his foes:
A wolf, haranguing lawyer-wise,
Denounced the ass for sacrifice--
The bald-pate, scabby, ragged lout,
By whom the plague had come, no doubt.
His fault was judged a hanging crime.
'What? eat another's grass? O shame!
The noose of rope and death sublime,'
For that offence, were all too tame!
And soon poor Grizzle felt the same.
Thus human courts acquit the strong,
And doom the weak, as therefore wrong.
"And there's now every chance that as he performs his duties protecting senior execs, he is carrying a concealed weapon."
I know what you're thinking. Is that an iPad in his pocket or a gun? You've got to ask yourself a question: Is he going to blow my head off or take a flattering photo with the iPad? Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
Yeah.
Also, did you read that stuff about Apple’s private security contractors using their arrest rights (Private contractor. WTF!) to stitch some guy up using rubbish ID and trying to erase the video evidence?
Security services at Apple needs serious investigation.
If, as his job implies, he is protecting senior execs, then maybe it's the US crazyness that means it's a good idea that he is armed.
I caught a bit of CNN last night (and yes, I do understand their biases), where they had an infographic up showing (from memory) something like 240 mass shooting this year, 290 dead and 9900 injured SO FAR this year. From memory, a number of those reported of the last 5 months or so have been disgruntled employees shooting off at their (ex) colleagues and employers. With a company the size of Apple, I'd imagine those execs feel that they a odds-on targets of at least some crazies. Especially if it's easy to get a gun as simply volunteering to have a Coronavirus jab in some places. Looking at you West Virginia
Yeah, I know, "only in the USA" can you be saved from possible death by being given something designed to deal death!)
The US is a total mess with it's gun control/gun law, obviously. However, the security services, like members of the public, don't conceal their guns, they're all still just open-carrying (except LEO will be carrying loaded, not just 'expressing their constitutional freedms') So if his case is that he's been thoroughly vetted for trustworthiness and mental stability, but doesn't want to be seen carrying a gun a lot, then it doesn't make the world of difference imho. And thanks to these stories, an even wider circle of organised undesirables are aware they wouldn't be attacking an unarmed target, should they target him.
except LEO will be carrying loaded, not just 'expressing their constitutional freedms
I'll bet just about everyone carrying whether open or concealed are carrying loaded. Carrying an unloaded weapon is stupid, when others see you are armed you run the risk of escalating a situation without the ability to defend yourself.
Self Defense, that is the answer!
When criminals are waling around every day int his country with guns, When Leftist politicians are Defunding and demoralizing the police, when crime is rising exponentially in this (US) country.
I as a human being have a right to defend myself and my loved ones and also anyone I may see being attacked by a criminal (yes, I, in my home state have the right to use lethal force to protect a stranger I observe being attacked and believe their live is in danger).
Fact: 9mm is always faster than 911!
That is the standard you have to overcome for a criminal conviction in the US. If there exists a "reasonable doubt", then it is the duty of the jury to find innocent, or or judge to through out the charges. This case never should have been brought, because there was no way that standard could be met. Indeed, I doubt that "preponderance of the evidence" could have been met. This was an abusive prosecution.
This is mostly an issue because in many parts of California, you can only get a permit if you happen to be rich or politically well connected or politically powerful.
Other states have rules that anyone that passes the background check, completes the classes & tests, and pays the fee gets the permit regardless of their social station.
Some folks however are of the opinion that the common people should not be able to carry weapons to protect themselves and such protection should only be afforded to the rich, politically powerful and politicians who always seem to have plenty of people with weapons surrounding them, I guess their lives matter more?
The sheriff is a political appointment, subject to campaign finance laws, which in the US of Pay aren't worth the paper they are written on.
When you can affect the policies of law enforcement by "donating" to a campaign, then there is no need to follow the law and Murphy's golden rule becomes Law
Plus gun control, or the lack thereof, in the US, is a joke. The whole 2nd amendment was about states maintaining a militia to overthrow the federal government if it became tyrannical, and this function is ably served by the National Guard or the aforementioned LEOs (who probably have better weapons)
Protect and Serve, everyone, use of lethal force should be a last, not first resort, and get money and religion out of politics, then you may have a chance of getting a functioning society.
"Plus gun control, or the lack thereof, in the US, is a joke. The whole 2nd amendment was about states maintaining a militia to overthrow the federal government if it became tyrannical, and this function is ably served by the National Guard or the aforementioned LEOs (who probably have better weapons)"
You are absolutely wrong! In the time of the the Constitution there was not standing guard. There really was not standing army. The term militia meant that the state could "call to arms" the citizenry who owned their own arms. The SCOTUS has rules that the militia argument does not stand. The 2nd amendment states that "Congress shall pass no law infringing the rights of the people to keep and bear arms". And that means each and every individual.
Not to justify any of the actions of the defendants but, California is notorious for not approving carry application and also dragging out application that they cannot deny based on the law. Specifically so that applicants just give up. Unfortunately CA does not have a "must issue" law like many other states. "Must issue" states that unless you can produce evidence through background checks that the applicant is ineligible for the permit, the permit must be issued withing X days (90 days here in Florida where I live). CA can delay an eligible applicant indefinitely.
I know this is a hard issue for those across the pond to understand but here in the US we have a right to "keep AND bear arms". Politically motivates laws, and the manipulation of those laws by politically motivated bureaucratizes just make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens who want to excessive their constitutional rights.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
