A Florida woman was charged after police said she threatened an insurance company with the phrase "delay, deny, depose."An arrest affidavit obtained by WFLA said the FBI contacted the Lakeland Police Department on Tuesday with information about an alleged threat.According to the affidavit, 42-year-o...
police jail people for even less than that, they will lie and frame innocent people to put them in jail
She repeated the phrase written on the bullet casings used in the killing of an insurance CEO and then said “you people are next” on a phone call with her insurance - it’s clearly a threat given the context of the phrase and the killing. Denying that context is one of the less defensible positions here. What is more defensible is that her threat is clearly empty and the law has stricter requirements about what constitutes a crime.
She repeated the phrase written on the bullet casings used in the killing of an insurance CEO and then said “you people are next” on a phone call with her insurance - it’s clearly a threat given the context of the phrase and the killing.
Here’s the thing, at least this is how I view it:
Is it reasonable to believe she can actually carry out this threat? If not, then jail is waaaaay overkill. Shit, we have violent offenders and drunk drivers around here who don’t see the inside of a cell at all.
This woman, denied insurance for either a health matter that her or a loved one is going through. She’s a middle-aged woman who doesn’t own a firearm, and is likely very frustrated for being put in a health (or financial) crisis by the denial of her insurance provider.
Did she say “you people are next” in reference to the putting down of another insurance company CEO? Of course. Do people say things like that all the time out of frustration with no way they could realistically or literally carry out the threat? ALL THE TIME.
This is an example of the justice system taking the side of a business, and not a person. It’s shameful, and this judge likely hasn’t considered the harm caused by insurance companies - actual harm, that actually kills real life people!
Anyway, I don’t agree that she should have been arrested and jailed. I can empathize with her frustration, because I have sick American friends who always get shit on by their insurance company, delaying treatment or arguing against their doctor’s recommendations.
Did she say “you people are next” in reference to the putting down of another insurance company CEO? Of course.
Right, so not what you said originally, which is that she meant something else and the sheriff who ordered her arrest was just jumping to conclusions, a conclusion you now agree with.
Anyway, I agree with you that it is an injustice that she was jailed, and I think we are all empathizing with her right now. We would all like the police to take more seriously dangerous stalkers and protecting people, and not serving as the militant arm of the 1%. Unfortunately, the police are an institution that historically have been put in place by the 1% to protect their interests, and there is a long-standing legal ruling that the police are not there to “protect and serve” (the common citizen).
Right, so not what you said originally, which is that she meant something else and the sheriff who ordered her arrest was just jumping to conclusions, a conclusion you now agree with.
That could still be true, though. That’s the thing… you can’t make assumptions about other people’s intentions, even if the context seems to point one way in hindsight.
From the article: “She reportedly said she used the phrase “because it’s what is in the news right now.””
She may not have even known the full extent of the context, like someone repeating a meme without knowing the origin story.
The officers interpreted what she said as an actual threat of violence, which is completely outrageous.
After being charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, a judge set Boston’s bond at $100,000.
The judge made a HUGE FUCKING LEAP here! She had neither the means nor the intent to “conduct a mass shooting”, any more than if she claimed she would “nuke” their building.
This judge is either being paid by the insurance company, or is acting in poor faith.
Unfortunately, the police are an institution that historically have been put in place by the 1% to protect their interests, and there is a long-standing legal ruling that the police are not there to “protect and serve” (the common citizen).
I couldn’t agree more, especially as it’s applied to this story.
Let’s say an elected official or candidate (bless em if any would actually do this) says this phrase in a speech. Would they be arrested? Or would they be given an interview for them to explain themselves, where they deftly state “obviously I’m not talking about doing it myself - but generally speaking these companies are heading in a concerning direction”. There would be debates over it, some people would be upset, but the story would fade and the politician would likely move on as well.
Say that phrase with Trump’s voice in your head and it sounds like much of his political speech.
Regular folks must be a lot more careful with their speech in the US, far less of it is free.
that’s true for everyone in jail :-) but it’s also not the most proximate cause, it’s more like a background requirement, a necessary but not sufficient condition
Let’s be real, the “You people are next” is probably the reason for jail.
“… to hear from my lawyer!”
“… to get bad press once I go to the newspaper.”
“… <insert anything that doesn’t mean physical violence.>”
I hope we don’t jail people based on what we think they meant.
police jail people for even less than that, they will lie and frame innocent people to put them in jail
She repeated the phrase written on the bullet casings used in the killing of an insurance CEO and then said “you people are next” on a phone call with her insurance - it’s clearly a threat given the context of the phrase and the killing. Denying that context is one of the less defensible positions here. What is more defensible is that her threat is clearly empty and the law has stricter requirements about what constitutes a crime.
Here’s the thing, at least this is how I view it:
Is it reasonable to believe she can actually carry out this threat? If not, then jail is waaaaay overkill. Shit, we have violent offenders and drunk drivers around here who don’t see the inside of a cell at all.
This woman, denied insurance for either a health matter that her or a loved one is going through. She’s a middle-aged woman who doesn’t own a firearm, and is likely very frustrated for being put in a health (or financial) crisis by the denial of her insurance provider.
Did she say “you people are next” in reference to the putting down of another insurance company CEO? Of course. Do people say things like that all the time out of frustration with no way they could realistically or literally carry out the threat? ALL THE TIME.
This is an example of the justice system taking the side of a business, and not a person. It’s shameful, and this judge likely hasn’t considered the harm caused by insurance companies - actual harm, that actually kills real life people!
Anyway, I don’t agree that she should have been arrested and jailed. I can empathize with her frustration, because I have sick American friends who always get shit on by their insurance company, delaying treatment or arguing against their doctor’s recommendations.
Right, so not what you said originally, which is that she meant something else and the sheriff who ordered her arrest was just jumping to conclusions, a conclusion you now agree with.
Anyway, I agree with you that it is an injustice that she was jailed, and I think we are all empathizing with her right now. We would all like the police to take more seriously dangerous stalkers and protecting people, and not serving as the militant arm of the 1%. Unfortunately, the police are an institution that historically have been put in place by the 1% to protect their interests, and there is a long-standing legal ruling that the police are not there to “protect and serve” (the common citizen).
That could still be true, though. That’s the thing… you can’t make assumptions about other people’s intentions, even if the context seems to point one way in hindsight.
From the article: “She reportedly said she used the phrase “because it’s what is in the news right now.””
She may not have even known the full extent of the context, like someone repeating a meme without knowing the origin story.
The officers interpreted what she said as an actual threat of violence, which is completely outrageous.
The judge made a HUGE FUCKING LEAP here! She had neither the means nor the intent to “conduct a mass shooting”, any more than if she claimed she would “nuke” their building.
This judge is either being paid by the insurance company, or is acting in poor faith.
I couldn’t agree more, especially as it’s applied to this story.
Let’s say an elected official or candidate (bless em if any would actually do this) says this phrase in a speech. Would they be arrested? Or would they be given an interview for them to explain themselves, where they deftly state “obviously I’m not talking about doing it myself - but generally speaking these companies are heading in a concerning direction”. There would be debates over it, some people would be upset, but the story would fade and the politician would likely move on as well.
Say that phrase with Trump’s voice in your head and it sounds like much of his political speech.
Regular folks must be a lot more careful with their speech in the US, far less of it is free.
Now your understand how freedom of speech in america works o7
yes, of course
Sure that’s the reason but is it a justification?
Do you know how many people are saying shit like this everyday all day?
This is the police protecting corporate America over the working class.
I guarantee they are taking orders from the oligarchs. Squash any talks of more execution
Agreed, and I never said otherwise.
No, her lack of money is the reason for jail.
that’s true for everyone in jail :-) but it’s also not the most proximate cause, it’s more like a background requirement, a necessary but not sufficient condition