Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jbuzbee 2034 days ago
There's a difference between a bribe to win a contract or similar vs. the case where you feel in danger - e.g. you come across a roadblock in rural Mexico and an armed official wants a "clear up your paperwork" payoff to let you pass. That's the scenario the training covers.
1 comments
temp667 2034 days ago
Exactly, and it's clearly permitted to pay in that case because being able to travel involves routine govt action. I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.
link
zaroth 2034 days ago
> routine govt action

Like issuing a concealed-carry permit to a non-felon ex-Navy corporate executive.

OP describes a ransom, not a bribe. Charge the govt official who demanded the ransom, not the citizen entrapped in the scheme.

link
moftz 2034 days ago
Except most of these guys either paid the bribe or had it ready to go until they heard sirens. These guys could have easily reported the solicitation but instead they participated in it. This isn't the case where a cop is threatening to throw you in jail or plant drugs on you unless you pay up right now, this is a state permit process. No one had their life or freedom directly threatened over not having more CCW permits for their security team.

The sheriff deputies fucked up. The CCW applicants fucked up. Everyone got caught and everyone is going to suffer the consequences.

link
LorenPechtel 2033 days ago
Reporting it would have meant no chance of getting the permits. I am not going to fault anyone who plays along with a facilitation payment even when it's the US government demanding it.
link
reaperducer 2034 days ago
I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.

From the usual IANAL crowd: "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true."

And if you're an actual lawyer, internet rules dictate that anything you know is trumped by a Wikipedia link.

link
brigandish 2034 days ago
To be fair, the Wikipedia pages on law that I've read are quite good (IANAL, just interested), probably because they rarely touch on politics.

Or, perhaps it's that those editors who distort other areas of the wiki to fit their political biases aren't interested in law. It could be either or both (or neither, but I'm biased towards myself;)

link