As long as we're being very careful in our fact-finding, did you come across some clear evidence that this man actually stole the phone, or did you mean to include "allegedly"?
Funny how so many here can pick fly shit from pepper to defend Apple, but will damn others to jail time and even hell itself with nothing more than the loosest of rumors.
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
1) Impersonating an officer is a criminal, not a civil offence, Apple will have 4 police offices and Mr Calderon as defence witnesses.
2) These two private citizens began searching his residence WITH Mr Caleron's permission, Apple will have 4 police offices and Mr Calderon as defence witnesses.
This is a perfect example of why you should never let anyone into your home without calling the police station, with the number in the phonebook, to verify the badge number and location of an officer reputing to have the authority to enter your home. If you have a cell phone or second line, you should also call your lawyer or at least an independent witness to come to the scene immediately.
It's also an example of why shouldn't believe everything you hear. Especially first reports. Next time wait for the second shoe to drop before you start with the "sky is falling" posts. Same goes to all the rest of you who swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. Especially the haters. You know who you are. Android fanboys.
If you don't know what I'm talking about read subsequent AI post on the subject.
1) Impersonating an officer is a criminal, not a civil offence, Apple will have 4 police offices and Mr Calderon as defence witnesses.
Yup. Four officers that will have to explain why they were there and why they apparently didn't properly record or report their involvement. Mr Calderon will also have the SFPD as witness to testify that the incident was not recorded, took an investigation itself to find information about and whether any of that was considered or against any rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsideOut
2) These two private citizens began searching his residence WITH Mr Caleron's permission, Apple will have 4 police offices and Mr Calderon as defence witnesses.
Same as above. The two private citizens, employees of Apple, engaged in their duties as Apple employees will also have to explain whether they clearly identified who they were or intentionally allowed the introduction of their group as being police officers to be assumed to apply to them and if they used that to gain entry and cooperation (along with the racist threats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsideOut
3) No crime, no case.
Very true for a criminal case. As has been widely advocated by many here (re: Gizmodo), that doesn't rule out a civil case.
Exactly what do you think "not on the books" means if not "we don't have any record". Shit dude, it isn't that hard.
I certainly never accused Apple of impersonating police. I said that if the police were not there, as they repeatedly claimed, then someone was misrepresenting themselves as police. The SFPD agree.
"If this guy is saying that the people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal." -SFPD spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield
Mr Calderón consented to a search only after 4-6 police officers (4 but he thought at 6 were) show up his door and some member of that party makes racist threats about deportation if he failed to cooperate. You think a judge would see that as a non-issue?
Clearly there was a record? So clear that no one could find it for two days? No police officer nor anyone else has claimed they found a record of the visit. You just made that up.
"Dangerfield says that, after conferring with Apple and the captain of the Ingleside police station, he has learned that plainclothes SFPD officers went with private Apple detectives to the home of Sergio Calderón"
They found the information after speaking to a captain. As it it was personally relayed to them but they had to track it down. Maybe there is a report now and maybe there wasn't. But you shouldn't feel the need to make things up to bolster your position. It doesn't come off well.
Your the one trying to bolster your position, there was no investigation, therefore no record of an investigation. As for "not on the books", that's your assumption from the fact that there is no record of an investigation that never took place. My assumption is that if a record of a coutasy (for Apple) visit to Mr Calderon's house is SOP, then Ingleside would be the place to keep it.
Her's what I think is the most likly scenerio. Dangerfield conntacted Apple about the serch, Apple sometime later confirms they went to the house with 4 Ingleside officers on July XX and gives more details. Dangerfield then contacts Ingleside who then asks their officers if they remember it and what happened. The officers in question then go through there notebooks, pass on the information which is then reported to Dangerfield who then makes a statmeant. This takes a bit of time because people are working at home, whatever, it's low priority as Apple has already confirmed the gist of the story. Which is "no crime was commited"
So why arn't the records on a computer database? because for something like this, it's a waste of time trancribing from the notebook onto a notebook. So why havn't they said "the officers written records can confirm I'm not lieing", because it a none story meant as click bait.
Lastly, asking someone their nationality is not racist and beside the point as thats got nothing to do with Apple. That would be a seperate case against the SFPD.
Your the one trying to bolster your position, there was no investigation, therefore no record of an investigation. As for "not on the books", that's your assumption from the fact that there is no record of an investigation that never took place. My assumption is that if a record of a coutasy (for Apple) visit to Mr Calderon's house is SOP, then Ingleside would be the place to keep it.
Her's what I think is the most likly scenerio. Dangerfield conntacted Apple about the serch, Apple sometime later confirms they went to the house with 4 Ingleside officers on July XX and gives more details. Dangerfield then contacts Ingleside who then asks their officers if they remember it and what happened. The officers in question then go through there notebooks, pass on the information which is then reported to Dangerfield who then makes a statmeant. This takes a bit of time because people are working at home, whatever, it's low priority as Apple has already confirmed the gist of the story. Which is "no crime was commited"
So why arn't the records on a computer database? because for something like this, it's a waste of time trancribing from the notebook onto a notebook. So why havn't they said "the officers written records can confirm I'm not lieing", because it a none story meant as click bait.
Lastly, asking someone their nationality is not racist and beside the point as thats got nothing to do with Apple. That would be a seperate case against the SFPD.
The huge hole in your theory is that the police have to record all of their actions and movements in their reports. This mandatory....they have to account for their time and actions. Unless it was done as a favor and they were off the clock. But then they can't identify themselves as police officers. At that point they are private citizens that just happened to be police officers.
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
Warrant or no warrant, identifying themselves properly or not, police officers entering the residence or apple employees or both, NONE of that matters in a legal sense once they guy let them come in and search and didn't ask to see a warrant or say no. All he had to do was say no. The guy was a goof and basically tossed his rights within the confines of the immediate situation by acquiescing to their requests to enter and search. All he had to do was say no, and they couldn't have entered without breaking the law, and they wouldn't have tried, as it wouldn't have been in the best interest of their investigation to cripple it by violating some guy's rights regardless of whether it's ethically right or wrong. However, he said ok, come in, search. Think of it this way, if some guy came to your door and asked to come in and search your place, and he WASN'T a cop and DIDN'T pretend to be one, but you said ok, sure, and let him come in and search, you would have NO legal leg to stand on if you tried to later accuse him of trespassing. You have to assert your rights to freedom from search and seizure, not just passively assume you can fix it later after you initially complied without duress, there's endless amounts of legal precedent for this. Since these cops and apple people weren't trying to make an arrest, nor trying to serve a search warrant, they could be cops, non-cops, or hobos off the street, and none of that matters once they guy said yes, come in, search. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but that's the current state of the law, and to insist otherwise is to misunderstand the law. That's the long and short of the legality of the entry into and search of his residence. Cops are allowed to lie to you, and manipulation is part and parcel to their duties as law officers. (They're not peace officers, nor even crime preventing officers [people suing cops for negligently allowing them to come to harm almost always lose], despite what the public might like to believe. They're ONLY "law" officers, enforcing laws and investigating after the fact.)
As for apple employees representing themselves as police officers, well, we don't know what happened there. In the original article there simply isn't enough information to say that definitively. Reading the statement from Calderon that says "when they came to my house, they said they were SFPD," and "I thought they were SFPD. That's why I let them in," makes it clear that HE thought all 6 people for SFPD, even if at the same time it sounds to me like he mistakenly assumed that, because he was simply intimidated by the situation. His own statement to me implies that he was not TOLD directly that all 6 were cops, he assumed it, and even if that is sneaky bullshit, that's the way the law goes. The onus is on the accuser to show that somebody actively represented *himself* as a cop who wasn't, not that some actual cop used language that made you assume some other guys were cops when they weren't. This is shit that cops get away with EVERY DAY, because the law is on their side. All he had to do was say no to the whole thing, but he said yes, and presto, he was boned. Anything they may have said to intimidate him about his immigration status, or stuff like "let us in to search now, and it'll go easier on you than if we have to come back with a warrant" or whatever other LIES they may have used were totally LEGAL for the cops to say, as they are ALLOWED to lie. That's not just my opinion, that's an important piece of legal understanding, with tons of precedent, even though I find it wrong. The SFPD spokesman Dangerfeld responded to the accusation of misrepresentation with a simple denial, "I don't have any indication of that. I'm not going to go there," so clearly the cops aren't going to roll over and admit to any willful misrepresentation no matter what the truth. With that, and considering there are simply two hearsay sides of a story to go by, and no other concrete evidence beyond that, not even a secondary witness, I'm quite certain that the idea of "impersonating an officer" on the part of the non-cops present won't ever go anywhere in the courts, civil or criminal. Even if the SFPD rep flat out lied and the 2 apple people at the scene DID indeed say "hey, yeah, we're cops too", there's no way the courts would believe the guy without more evidence or additional witnesses. (Side note, I seriously doubt that was the case, it really sounds like the guy made a mistaken assumption that all six guys were cops since one of them said "we're the cops", but again, we can't know either way as outsiders, and again, it doesn't really matter with regards to the entry and search since no warrant or arrest was involved.) Again, this isn't about my opinion on the right and wrong of it, I'm just talking about what law enforcement and the courts are going to say about it versus this Calderon guy's possibilities for legal recourse.
Plus, "wise guy"? Really? I think you might be getting me wrong. I'm no mindless apple apologist. I think this whole thing stinks of overkill and intimidation. It's just a frickin' product prototype, they should calm the fuck down. However, the statements laid out so far lead me to believe that Apple will not be on the hook for any illegal conduct, even if they've acted unethically in our eyes. That is totally separate from PR backlash, mind you. That's going to happen, just wait until Monday/Tuesday-ish after the long weekend, I suspect we'll be seeing a zillion articles on this. If there's any legal fallout, I think it's going to be on the SFPD cops themselves for acting like apple's in-house rent-a-cops.
The huge hole in your theory is that the police have to record all of their actions and movements in their reports. This mandatory....they have to account for their time and actions. Unless it was done as a favor and they were off the clock. But then they can't identify themselves as police officers. At that point they are private citizens that just happened to be police officers.
There is no hole, we have commontators saying there is no record based on a single sentance. Now that may be true but so far there is no evidence, no statment to indicate that it is true. Pure speculation. Also everything that has comeout indicates that they were "on the clock". The SFPD has said that officers went along with the Apple investigators.
There not only is no crime but no case, this whole story was simply click-bait for eyeball $$$.
Man, what a way to spoil a party. Come on man, get in the groove: let's go to this dude's house with pitchforks and torches until he confesses he's a witch!
You reasonable people are no fun at all.
If this story is true, it seems far more likely that Officer Esparza will suddenly "discover" a dispatch sending those officers on the call.
lol, im not trying to ruin the party, but I am jus trying to think reasonably while there is a war going on in this thread lol. We have some people blindly making excuses for Apple without knowing much of what is actually going on (even tho I firmly believe Apple is not that dumb to do that, as I stated), and on the other side we have the other people accusing Apple of anything they can think may fit into this story on top of also acusing them of doing things said in the story that may or not be true.
Like I said, lets just wait til we have ALL, or MOST, the facts before we go into full out panic/happy mode (depending on which side of the Apple fence you're on). The first piece of the puzzle has been placed; the SFPD admitted to being involved.
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
I know you want to act like you know what you are talking about, but you sir are COMPLETELY wrong. In a court of law, Calderon will not get past the first day if one of his biggest points is that he was under the impression that the 2 guys who he let in were police officers.
The judge will ask them: 'Were the two men that entered your residence in police uniforms or show you a badge?'
Calderon: 'No, but....,'
Judge: 'Did you ask the two men or did the two men at any point tell you they were police officers?'
Calderon: 'No, but I....'
Judge: 'Well in that case, you sir do not have a case. We can not charge these two men of impersonating police officers if neither one of them wore any police attire or told you that they were police officers. The court can not admit evidence based on assumptions.
Again like I have said several times....APPLE IS NOT THAT DUMB. They have ran several investigations where they take the lead then after they have all the evidence they serve it on a platter to the proper law enforcement agency to finish the job. Also, if this was the way some of you guys are trying to make it look (that the Apple employees did impersonate police etc etc), I would guess the employees did it without the consent from their superiors, but I think the entire thing is highly unlikely.
Your the one trying to bolster your position, there was no investigation, therefore no record of an investigation. As for "not on the books", that's your assumption from the fact that there is no record of an investigation that never took place. My assumption is that if a record of a coutasy (for Apple) visit to Mr Calderon's house is SOP, then Ingleside would be the place to keep it.
Wow. So 'not on the books' shouldn't mean 'we have no record'. You are really stretching now. It's sort of sad to watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsideOut
Her's what I think is the most likly scenerio. Dangerfield conntacted Apple about the serch, Apple sometime later confirms they went to the house with 4 Ingleside officers on July XX and gives more details. Dangerfield then contacts Ingleside who then asks their officers if they remember it and what happened. The officers in question then go through there notebooks, pass on the information which is then reported to Dangerfield who then makes a statmeant. This takes a bit of time because people are working at home, whatever, it's low priority as Apple has already confirmed the gist of the story. Which is "no crime was commited"
That's a nice story. Have any facts to substantiate it or just more assumptions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsideOut
So why arn't the records on a computer database? because for something like this, it's a waste of time trancribing from the notebook onto a notebook. So why havn't they said "the officers written records can confirm I'm not lieing", because it a none story meant as click bait.
Four detectives and not one of them records their time on an investigation in their computer? After a month? Come on, you can do better than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsideOut
Lastly, asking someone their nationality is not racist and beside the point as thats got nothing to do with Apple. That would be a seperate case against the SFPD.
Huh. If you say that isn't racist, then I guess it isn't (but you must be the whitest person in America to think that). I guess threatening someone with being deported isn't racist, even though that person is a citizen. Think that threat would have been made or would have even made sense if it was white person? Think Sergio's skin colour led to that threat? Still think that isn't by definition racist? Seriously, do you believe the drivel you are typing or are you just trying to play devil's advocate. Because you aren't doing a very good job.
And it is an Apple issue if it was an Apple employee that made the threat. We don't know because Sergio couldn't say since he thought they were all cops. Could have been a tactic used by either the cops or Apple staff to help gain cooperation. EIther is just as big a dick move.
I know you want to act like you know what you are talking about, but you sir are COMPLETELY wrong. In a court of law, Calderon will not get past the first day if one of his biggest points is that he was under the impression that the 2 guys who he let in were police officers.
The judge will ask them: 'Were the two men that entered your residence in police uniforms or show you a badge?'
Calderon: 'No, but....,'
Judge: 'Did you ask the two men or did the two men at any point tell you they were police officers?'
Calderon: 'No, but I....'
Judge: 'Well in that case, you sir do not have a case. We can not charge these two men of impersonating police officers if neither one of them wore any police attire or told you that they were police officers. The court can not admit evidence based on assumptions.
Probably. But it might be different if Calderon's testimony is:
"The man showed me a SFPD badge, introduced himself as a SFPD and said "we're with the police and would like to ask you some questions." at which time Mr. Colon began asking questions."
Should he have been expected to understand that the cop was only referring to a couple of their party and not those two specifically? Once introduced as police officers, he wouldn't have been assuming the were police officers, he would have been (wrongly) taking the identified police officers word for it. They were all plain clothed so no uniforms to distinguish the cops from the Apple staff.
I've haven't had many encounters with groups of police in the course of their jobs, but other than in court, I've never had every officer present separately identify themselves as police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corporate
Again like I have said several times....APPLE IS NOT THAT DUMB.
Colon was with Apple for less that 9 (7 or less at that time) months. We don't know how dumb he is or isn't.
This is a perfect example of why you should never let anyone into your home without calling the police station, with the number in the phonebook, to verify the badge number and location of an officer reputing to have the authority to enter your home. If you have a cell phone or second line, you should also call your lawyer or at least an independent witness to come to the scene immediately.
C'mon. If these guys rolled up to my house and said they were from Apple, I'd be rollin' out the red carpet for them. I'd be all, "hey, do you know Steve personally? How is he? When's the next iPad coming out?" Of course, I'd have to check their ID and make sure they're really from Apple, and not, say, agents of Samsung or Googlerola trying to get their hands on a lost iPhone 5 prototype
Like I said, lets just wait til we have ALL, or MOST, the facts before we go into full out panic/happy mode (depending on which side of the Apple fence you're on). The first piece of the puzzle has been placed; the SFPD admitted to being involved.
Facts? Facts have no place in an Internet forum. Flame on!
Probably. But it might be different if Calderon's testimony is:
"The man showed me a SFPD badge, introduced himself as a SFPD and said "we're with the police and would like to ask you some questions." at which time Mr. Colon began asking questions."
Should he have been expected to understand that the cop was only referring to a couple of their party and not those two specifically? Once introduced as police officers, he wouldn't have been assuming the were police officers, he would have been (wrongly) taking the identified police officers word for it. They were all plain clothed so no uniforms to distinguish the cops from the Apple staff.
I've haven't had many encounters with groups of police in the course of their jobs, but other than in court, I've never had every officer present separately identify themselves as police.
Colon was with Apple for less that 9 (7 or less at that time) months. We don't know how dumb he is or isn't.
Well now you are assuming things. They never reported exactly what was said. I agree with you on several of your points, but thats IF your scenario is correct. Like I said I have not picked any side Im just commenting from what I have read from the two articles.
Also from your other post to Inside Out, I'm pretty sure police officers do not have to log EVERY single thing they do. Especially if maybe they just went along with the Apple investigators. And since only the Apple investigators went into the house, then the officers never did any investigating. Therefore, they wouldn't be obligated to make a record of it.
Wow. So 'not on the books' shouldn't mean 'we have no record'. You are really stretching now. It's sort of sad to watch.
You have said its "not on the books", that's something you made up, the SFPD never said that. "we have no record", now your quoting out of context and deliberatly trying to misslead. You can not have a record of an investigation that never happened. There was no investigation so when Dangefield said "we have no record of an investigation" he was correct.
That's a nice story. Have any facts to substantiate it or just more assumptions?
Well from the public record my scenerio is consistant and logical and fit in with the facts, yours on the otherhad sound like it comes from an imbecile.
Four detectives and not one of them records their time on an investigation in their computer? After a month? Come on, you can do better than that.
Now thats you making up stories again. You have no facts so you resort to fiction.
Huh. If you say that isn't racist, then I guess it isn't (but you must be the whitest person in America to think that). I guess threatening someone with being deported isn't racist, even though that person is a citizen. Think that threat would have been made or would have even made sense if it was white person? Think Sergio's skin colour led to that threat? Still think that isn't by definition racist? Seriously, do you believe the drivel you are typing or are you just trying to play devil's advocate. Because you aren't doing a very good job.
Did Mr Calderon say anyone was racist, no he didn't. You just decided that since you didn't have a leg to stand on you would call the officers racist and then try to blame Apple.
And it is an Apple issue if it was an Apple employee that made the threat. We don't know because Sergio couldn't say since he thought they were all cops. Could have been a tactic used by either the cops or Apple staff to help gain cooperation. EIther is just as big a dick move.
Making up stories again based on your delusional perception. You arguments are now based on "if" and "could have been". Your entire reply can be summed up as "I won't Apple to be guilty of something, anything, facts be dammed". Did Mr Calderon say that either of the two people who entered the house with his permission asked about his or anyone elses immigration status? No he didn't. But that's not important to you as you know your argumeants hold no water and as such you smear by innuendo.
"If this guy is saying that people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal."
He's not kidding. If even a fraction of this is true, Apple is in big trouble.
On the other hand, Sergio Calderon could be lying about the whole incident. But I'm not sure what his motives would be.
Well, well. The story has changed, apparently.
Look, it appears that Mr. Calderon was asked, "can we search the place?" and he let them. It's like the cops you see on reality tv: "Do you mind if I search the trunk"? And they let him. If they haven't found pot already, you don't have to open the trunk and show them where you stash it. Now, maybe he never had this phone, and then he feels like an unheroic type because he let himself be searched. Since this was the version the "alternative press" put out, I can see the motive. Apple is not cool, man. They're, like, they're like big mean corporatists. I mean, man, they don't let you jailbreak, or you do it, and then they fix the OS and won't let that jailbreak continue -- and man, when they do an update, it won't update your jailbroken phone, man. Those fascists!
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
I hope my kids never kick a ball over the fence into your yard.
It sounds like there'd be hell to pay if I knocked on your door and asked if I could go look for it and you said yes, go ahead take a look.
Comments
As long as we're being very careful in our fact-finding, did you come across some clear evidence that this man actually stole the phone, or did you mean to include "allegedly"?
Funny how so many here can pick fly shit from pepper to defend Apple, but will damn others to jail time and even hell itself with nothing more than the loosest of rumors.
Has Apple actually said a phone was missing?
Hey wise guy,
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
1) Impersonating an officer is a criminal, not a civil offence, Apple will have 4 police offices and Mr Calderon as defence witnesses.
2) These two private citizens began searching his residence WITH Mr Caleron's permission, Apple will have 4 police offices and Mr Calderon as defence witnesses.
3) No crime, no case.
This is a perfect example of why you should never let anyone into your home without calling the police station, with the number in the phonebook, to verify the badge number and location of an officer reputing to have the authority to enter your home. If you have a cell phone or second line, you should also call your lawyer or at least an independent witness to come to the scene immediately.
It's also an example of why shouldn't believe everything you hear. Especially first reports. Next time wait for the second shoe to drop before you start with the "sky is falling" posts. Same goes to all the rest of you who swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. Especially the haters. You know who you are. Android fanboys.
If you don't know what I'm talking about read subsequent AI post on the subject.
1) Impersonating an officer is a criminal, not a civil offence, Apple will have 4 police offices and Mr Calderon as defence witnesses.
Yup. Four officers that will have to explain why they were there and why they apparently didn't properly record or report their involvement. Mr Calderon will also have the SFPD as witness to testify that the incident was not recorded, took an investigation itself to find information about and whether any of that was considered or against any rules.
2) These two private citizens began searching his residence WITH Mr Caleron's permission, Apple will have 4 police offices and Mr Calderon as defence witnesses.
Same as above. The two private citizens, employees of Apple, engaged in their duties as Apple employees will also have to explain whether they clearly identified who they were or intentionally allowed the introduction of their group as being police officers to be assumed to apply to them and if they used that to gain entry and cooperation (along with the racist threats.
3) No crime, no case.
Very true for a criminal case. As has been widely advocated by many here (re: Gizmodo), that doesn't rule out a civil case.
People like me? People able to read, apparently.
Exactly what do you think "not on the books" means if not "we don't have any record". Shit dude, it isn't that hard.
I certainly never accused Apple of impersonating police. I said that if the police were not there, as they repeatedly claimed, then someone was misrepresenting themselves as police. The SFPD agree.
"If this guy is saying that the people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal." -SFPD spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield
Mr Calderón consented to a search only after 4-6 police officers (4 but he thought at 6 were) show up his door and some member of that party makes racist threats about deportation if he failed to cooperate. You think a judge would see that as a non-issue?
Clearly there was a record? So clear that no one could find it for two days? No police officer nor anyone else has claimed they found a record of the visit. You just made that up.
"Dangerfield says that, after conferring with Apple and the captain of the Ingleside police station, he has learned that plainclothes SFPD officers went with private Apple detectives to the home of Sergio Calderón"
They found the information after speaking to a captain. As it it was personally relayed to them but they had to track it down. Maybe there is a report now and maybe there wasn't. But you shouldn't feel the need to make things up to bolster your position. It doesn't come off well.
Your the one trying to bolster your position, there was no investigation, therefore no record of an investigation. As for "not on the books", that's your assumption from the fact that there is no record of an investigation that never took place. My assumption is that if a record of a coutasy (for Apple) visit to Mr Calderon's house is SOP, then Ingleside would be the place to keep it.
Her's what I think is the most likly scenerio. Dangerfield conntacted Apple about the serch, Apple sometime later confirms they went to the house with 4 Ingleside officers on July XX and gives more details. Dangerfield then contacts Ingleside who then asks their officers if they remember it and what happened. The officers in question then go through there notebooks, pass on the information which is then reported to Dangerfield who then makes a statmeant. This takes a bit of time because people are working at home, whatever, it's low priority as Apple has already confirmed the gist of the story. Which is "no crime was commited"
So why arn't the records on a computer database? because for something like this, it's a waste of time trancribing from the notebook onto a notebook. So why havn't they said "the officers written records can confirm I'm not lieing", because it a none story meant as click bait.
Lastly, asking someone their nationality is not racist and beside the point as thats got nothing to do with Apple. That would be a seperate case against the SFPD.
Has Apple actually said a phone was missing?
Yes and they asked for assistance, iirc the words "invaluable to Apple" were used.
Your the one trying to bolster your position, there was no investigation, therefore no record of an investigation. As for "not on the books", that's your assumption from the fact that there is no record of an investigation that never took place. My assumption is that if a record of a coutasy (for Apple) visit to Mr Calderon's house is SOP, then Ingleside would be the place to keep it.
Her's what I think is the most likly scenerio. Dangerfield conntacted Apple about the serch, Apple sometime later confirms they went to the house with 4 Ingleside officers on July XX and gives more details. Dangerfield then contacts Ingleside who then asks their officers if they remember it and what happened. The officers in question then go through there notebooks, pass on the information which is then reported to Dangerfield who then makes a statmeant. This takes a bit of time because people are working at home, whatever, it's low priority as Apple has already confirmed the gist of the story. Which is "no crime was commited"
So why arn't the records on a computer database? because for something like this, it's a waste of time trancribing from the notebook onto a notebook. So why havn't they said "the officers written records can confirm I'm not lieing", because it a none story meant as click bait.
Lastly, asking someone their nationality is not racist and beside the point as thats got nothing to do with Apple. That would be a seperate case against the SFPD.
The huge hole in your theory is that the police have to record all of their actions and movements in their reports. This mandatory....they have to account for their time and actions. Unless it was done as a favor and they were off the clock. But then they can't identify themselves as police officers. At that point they are private citizens that just happened to be police officers.
Hey wise guy,
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
Warrant or no warrant, identifying themselves properly or not, police officers entering the residence or apple employees or both, NONE of that matters in a legal sense once they guy let them come in and search and didn't ask to see a warrant or say no. All he had to do was say no. The guy was a goof and basically tossed his rights within the confines of the immediate situation by acquiescing to their requests to enter and search. All he had to do was say no, and they couldn't have entered without breaking the law, and they wouldn't have tried, as it wouldn't have been in the best interest of their investigation to cripple it by violating some guy's rights regardless of whether it's ethically right or wrong. However, he said ok, come in, search. Think of it this way, if some guy came to your door and asked to come in and search your place, and he WASN'T a cop and DIDN'T pretend to be one, but you said ok, sure, and let him come in and search, you would have NO legal leg to stand on if you tried to later accuse him of trespassing. You have to assert your rights to freedom from search and seizure, not just passively assume you can fix it later after you initially complied without duress, there's endless amounts of legal precedent for this. Since these cops and apple people weren't trying to make an arrest, nor trying to serve a search warrant, they could be cops, non-cops, or hobos off the street, and none of that matters once they guy said yes, come in, search. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but that's the current state of the law, and to insist otherwise is to misunderstand the law. That's the long and short of the legality of the entry into and search of his residence. Cops are allowed to lie to you, and manipulation is part and parcel to their duties as law officers. (They're not peace officers, nor even crime preventing officers [people suing cops for negligently allowing them to come to harm almost always lose], despite what the public might like to believe. They're ONLY "law" officers, enforcing laws and investigating after the fact.)
As for apple employees representing themselves as police officers, well, we don't know what happened there. In the original article there simply isn't enough information to say that definitively. Reading the statement from Calderon that says "when they came to my house, they said they were SFPD," and "I thought they were SFPD. That's why I let them in," makes it clear that HE thought all 6 people for SFPD, even if at the same time it sounds to me like he mistakenly assumed that, because he was simply intimidated by the situation. His own statement to me implies that he was not TOLD directly that all 6 were cops, he assumed it, and even if that is sneaky bullshit, that's the way the law goes. The onus is on the accuser to show that somebody actively represented *himself* as a cop who wasn't, not that some actual cop used language that made you assume some other guys were cops when they weren't. This is shit that cops get away with EVERY DAY, because the law is on their side. All he had to do was say no to the whole thing, but he said yes, and presto, he was boned. Anything they may have said to intimidate him about his immigration status, or stuff like "let us in to search now, and it'll go easier on you than if we have to come back with a warrant" or whatever other LIES they may have used were totally LEGAL for the cops to say, as they are ALLOWED to lie. That's not just my opinion, that's an important piece of legal understanding, with tons of precedent, even though I find it wrong. The SFPD spokesman Dangerfeld responded to the accusation of misrepresentation with a simple denial, "I don't have any indication of that. I'm not going to go there," so clearly the cops aren't going to roll over and admit to any willful misrepresentation no matter what the truth. With that, and considering there are simply two hearsay sides of a story to go by, and no other concrete evidence beyond that, not even a secondary witness, I'm quite certain that the idea of "impersonating an officer" on the part of the non-cops present won't ever go anywhere in the courts, civil or criminal. Even if the SFPD rep flat out lied and the 2 apple people at the scene DID indeed say "hey, yeah, we're cops too", there's no way the courts would believe the guy without more evidence or additional witnesses. (Side note, I seriously doubt that was the case, it really sounds like the guy made a mistaken assumption that all six guys were cops since one of them said "we're the cops", but again, we can't know either way as outsiders, and again, it doesn't really matter with regards to the entry and search since no warrant or arrest was involved.) Again, this isn't about my opinion on the right and wrong of it, I'm just talking about what law enforcement and the courts are going to say about it versus this Calderon guy's possibilities for legal recourse.
Plus, "wise guy"? Really? I think you might be getting me wrong. I'm no mindless apple apologist. I think this whole thing stinks of overkill and intimidation. It's just a frickin' product prototype, they should calm the fuck down. However, the statements laid out so far lead me to believe that Apple will not be on the hook for any illegal conduct, even if they've acted unethically in our eyes. That is totally separate from PR backlash, mind you. That's going to happen, just wait until Monday/Tuesday-ish after the long weekend, I suspect we'll be seeing a zillion articles on this. If there's any legal fallout, I think it's going to be on the SFPD cops themselves for acting like apple's in-house rent-a-cops.
The huge hole in your theory is that the police have to record all of their actions and movements in their reports. This mandatory....they have to account for their time and actions. Unless it was done as a favor and they were off the clock. But then they can't identify themselves as police officers. At that point they are private citizens that just happened to be police officers.
There is no hole, we have commontators saying there is no record based on a single sentance. Now that may be true but so far there is no evidence, no statment to indicate that it is true. Pure speculation. Also everything that has comeout indicates that they were "on the clock". The SFPD has said that officers went along with the Apple investigators.
There not only is no crime but no case, this whole story was simply click-bait for eyeball $$$.
Man, what a way to spoil a party. Come on man, get in the groove: let's go to this dude's house with pitchforks and torches until he confesses he's a witch!
You reasonable people are no fun at all.
If this story is true, it seems far more likely that Officer Esparza will suddenly "discover" a dispatch sending those officers on the call.
lol, im not trying to ruin the party, but I am jus trying to think reasonably while there is a war going on in this thread lol. We have some people blindly making excuses for Apple without knowing much of what is actually going on (even tho I firmly believe Apple is not that dumb to do that, as I stated), and on the other side we have the other people accusing Apple of anything they can think may fit into this story on top of also acusing them of doing things said in the story that may or not be true.
Like I said, lets just wait til we have ALL, or MOST, the facts before we go into full out panic/happy mode (depending on which side of the Apple fence you're on). The first piece of the puzzle has been placed; the SFPD admitted to being involved.
Hey wise guy,
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
I know you want to act like you know what you are talking about, but you sir are COMPLETELY wrong. In a court of law, Calderon will not get past the first day if one of his biggest points is that he was under the impression that the 2 guys who he let in were police officers.
The judge will ask them: 'Were the two men that entered your residence in police uniforms or show you a badge?'
Calderon: 'No, but....,'
Judge: 'Did you ask the two men or did the two men at any point tell you they were police officers?'
Calderon: 'No, but I....'
Judge: 'Well in that case, you sir do not have a case. We can not charge these two men of impersonating police officers if neither one of them wore any police attire or told you that they were police officers. The court can not admit evidence based on assumptions.
Again like I have said several times....APPLE IS NOT THAT DUMB. They have ran several investigations where they take the lead then after they have all the evidence they serve it on a platter to the proper law enforcement agency to finish the job. Also, if this was the way some of you guys are trying to make it look (that the Apple employees did impersonate police etc etc), I would guess the employees did it without the consent from their superiors, but I think the entire thing is highly unlikely.
Edit: Sorry for the double post
Your the one trying to bolster your position, there was no investigation, therefore no record of an investigation. As for "not on the books", that's your assumption from the fact that there is no record of an investigation that never took place. My assumption is that if a record of a coutasy (for Apple) visit to Mr Calderon's house is SOP, then Ingleside would be the place to keep it.
Wow. So 'not on the books' shouldn't mean 'we have no record'. You are really stretching now. It's sort of sad to watch.
Her's what I think is the most likly scenerio. Dangerfield conntacted Apple about the serch, Apple sometime later confirms they went to the house with 4 Ingleside officers on July XX and gives more details. Dangerfield then contacts Ingleside who then asks their officers if they remember it and what happened. The officers in question then go through there notebooks, pass on the information which is then reported to Dangerfield who then makes a statmeant. This takes a bit of time because people are working at home, whatever, it's low priority as Apple has already confirmed the gist of the story. Which is "no crime was commited"
That's a nice story. Have any facts to substantiate it or just more assumptions?
So why arn't the records on a computer database? because for something like this, it's a waste of time trancribing from the notebook onto a notebook. So why havn't they said "the officers written records can confirm I'm not lieing", because it a none story meant as click bait.
Four detectives and not one of them records their time on an investigation in their computer? After a month? Come on, you can do better than that.
Lastly, asking someone their nationality is not racist and beside the point as thats got nothing to do with Apple. That would be a seperate case against the SFPD.
Huh. If you say that isn't racist, then I guess it isn't (but you must be the whitest person in America to think that). I guess threatening someone with being deported isn't racist, even though that person is a citizen. Think that threat would have been made or would have even made sense if it was white person? Think Sergio's skin colour led to that threat? Still think that isn't by definition racist? Seriously, do you believe the drivel you are typing or are you just trying to play devil's advocate. Because you aren't doing a very good job.
And it is an Apple issue if it was an Apple employee that made the threat. We don't know because Sergio couldn't say since he thought they were all cops. Could have been a tactic used by either the cops or Apple staff to help gain cooperation. EIther is just as big a dick move.
I know you want to act like you know what you are talking about, but you sir are COMPLETELY wrong. In a court of law, Calderon will not get past the first day if one of his biggest points is that he was under the impression that the 2 guys who he let in were police officers.
The judge will ask them: 'Were the two men that entered your residence in police uniforms or show you a badge?'
Calderon: 'No, but....,'
Judge: 'Did you ask the two men or did the two men at any point tell you they were police officers?'
Calderon: 'No, but I....'
Judge: 'Well in that case, you sir do not have a case. We can not charge these two men of impersonating police officers if neither one of them wore any police attire or told you that they were police officers. The court can not admit evidence based on assumptions.
Probably. But it might be different if Calderon's testimony is:
"The man showed me a SFPD badge, introduced himself as a SFPD and said "we're with the police and would like to ask you some questions." at which time Mr. Colon began asking questions."
Should he have been expected to understand that the cop was only referring to a couple of their party and not those two specifically? Once introduced as police officers, he wouldn't have been assuming the were police officers, he would have been (wrongly) taking the identified police officers word for it. They were all plain clothed so no uniforms to distinguish the cops from the Apple staff.
I've haven't had many encounters with groups of police in the course of their jobs, but other than in court, I've never had every officer present separately identify themselves as police.
Again like I have said several times....APPLE IS NOT THAT DUMB.
Colon was with Apple for less that 9 (7 or less at that time) months. We don't know how dumb he is or isn't.
This is a perfect example of why you should never let anyone into your home without calling the police station, with the number in the phonebook, to verify the badge number and location of an officer reputing to have the authority to enter your home. If you have a cell phone or second line, you should also call your lawyer or at least an independent witness to come to the scene immediately.
C'mon. If these guys rolled up to my house and said they were from Apple, I'd be rollin' out the red carpet for them. I'd be all, "hey, do you know Steve personally? How is he? When's the next iPad coming out?" Of course, I'd have to check their ID and make sure they're really from Apple, and not, say, agents of Samsung or Googlerola trying to get their hands on a lost iPhone 5 prototype
Like I said, lets just wait til we have ALL, or MOST, the facts before we go into full out panic/happy mode (depending on which side of the Apple fence you're on). The first piece of the puzzle has been placed; the SFPD admitted to being involved.
Facts? Facts have no place in an Internet forum. Flame on!
Probably. But it might be different if Calderon's testimony is:
"The man showed me a SFPD badge, introduced himself as a SFPD and said "we're with the police and would like to ask you some questions." at which time Mr. Colon began asking questions."
Should he have been expected to understand that the cop was only referring to a couple of their party and not those two specifically? Once introduced as police officers, he wouldn't have been assuming the were police officers, he would have been (wrongly) taking the identified police officers word for it. They were all plain clothed so no uniforms to distinguish the cops from the Apple staff.
I've haven't had many encounters with groups of police in the course of their jobs, but other than in court, I've never had every officer present separately identify themselves as police.
Colon was with Apple for less that 9 (7 or less at that time) months. We don't know how dumb he is or isn't.
Well now you are assuming things. They never reported exactly what was said. I agree with you on several of your points, but thats IF your scenario is correct. Like I said I have not picked any side Im just commenting from what I have read from the two articles.
Also from your other post to Inside Out, I'm pretty sure police officers do not have to log EVERY single thing they do. Especially if maybe they just went along with the Apple investigators. And since only the Apple investigators went into the house, then the officers never did any investigating. Therefore, they wouldn't be obligated to make a record of it.
You have said its "not on the books", that's something you made up, the SFPD never said that. "we have no record", now your quoting out of context and deliberatly trying to misslead. You can not have a record of an investigation that never happened. There was no investigation so when Dangefield said "we have no record of an investigation" he was correct.
That's a nice story. Have any facts to substantiate it or just more assumptions?
Well from the public record my scenerio is consistant and logical and fit in with the facts, yours on the otherhad sound like it comes from an imbecile.
Four detectives and not one of them records their time on an investigation in their computer? After a month? Come on, you can do better than that.
Now thats you making up stories again. You have no facts so you resort to fiction.
Huh. If you say that isn't racist, then I guess it isn't (but you must be the whitest person in America to think that). I guess threatening someone with being deported isn't racist, even though that person is a citizen. Think that threat would have been made or would have even made sense if it was white person? Think Sergio's skin colour led to that threat? Still think that isn't by definition racist? Seriously, do you believe the drivel you are typing or are you just trying to play devil's advocate. Because you aren't doing a very good job.
Did Mr Calderon say anyone was racist, no he didn't. You just decided that since you didn't have a leg to stand on you would call the officers racist and then try to blame Apple.
And it is an Apple issue if it was an Apple employee that made the threat. We don't know because Sergio couldn't say since he thought they were all cops. Could have been a tactic used by either the cops or Apple staff to help gain cooperation. EIther is just as big a dick move.
Making up stories again based on your delusional perception. You arguments are now based on "if" and "could have been". Your entire reply can be summed up as "I won't Apple to be guilty of something, anything, facts be dammed". Did Mr Calderon say that either of the two people who entered the house with his permission asked about his or anyone elses immigration status? No he didn't. But that's not important to you as you know your argumeants hold no water and as such you smear by innuendo.
Rather than release bit and pieces about the IPHONE5, Apple has gone to the new cloak &dagger
idea. Hey its more exciting and eventually we get the bits and pieces anyhow.
Next we are going to see the IPHONE5 turn up at somebodies house or workplace,
STAY TUNED
"If this guy is saying that people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal."
He's not kidding. If even a fraction of this is true, Apple is in big trouble.
On the other hand, Sergio Calderon could be lying about the whole incident. But I'm not sure what his motives would be.
Well, well. The story has changed, apparently.
Look, it appears that Mr. Calderon was asked, "can we search the place?" and he let them. It's like the cops you see on reality tv: "Do you mind if I search the trunk"? And they let him. If they haven't found pot already, you don't have to open the trunk and show them where you stash it. Now, maybe he never had this phone, and then he feels like an unheroic type because he let himself be searched. Since this was the version the "alternative press" put out, I can see the motive. Apple is not cool, man. They're, like, they're like big mean corporatists. I mean, man, they don't let you jailbreak, or you do it, and then they fix the OS and won't let that jailbreak continue -- and man, when they do an update, it won't update your jailbroken phone, man. Those fascists!
Hey wise guy,
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
I hope my kids never kick a ball over the fence into your yard.
It sounds like there'd be hell to pay if I knocked on your door and asked if I could go look for it and you said yes, go ahead take a look.
Would I need a warrant or something?