Woman jailed after using shooting suspect's catchphrase as insurance company denied claim.
Woman jailed after using shooting suspect's catchphrase as insurance company denied claim.
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...
You're viewing a single thread.
I imagine the "Delay, Deny, Depose" didn't get her in trouble nearly as much as the "You people are next" part. Yeah, that's a bit hostile there.
Please, marginalized people get more explicitly threatening crap said to them all the time and people rarely get arrested or charged for that. She's being charged because the system wants to make an example out of her. The judge basically said so himself at the bail hearing,
"I do find that the bond of $100,000 is appropriate considering the status of our country at this point," the judge said.
Ouch. "This place is a shit show," the judge said. (Not really, just fixed it for him).
They need to appeal this. Clear judicial error. If he wouldn’t have done this 3 weeks ago legally he can’t do it now.
100k for a threat made in reaction to what was likely fear for her life, or the life of her loved one.
It's pretty amazingly cruel.
Not saying you are wrong about the marginalized, but in this case she made, what could be considered threatening, a call to a health care provider that was not only actionable, but entirely recorded.
"The system" won't make an example out of her, "Exhibit A" will. That's the difference.
Yet, if Trump said it live in front of cameras, it would be "a joke."
In Trump's case it would be on 5th avenue in broad daylight.
Just a joke though.
It's both.
$100k bond for a threat that is neither specific nor credible is absurd.
If it were a first time offender threat against a normal person (which is more specific), at most it would result in probation and a restraining order.
The bond is ridiculous, but the arrest wasn't.
I've met victims of domestic violence who were threatened much worse than "you guys are next" so I'm not buying this as anything other than the system trying to use her as an example.
Were their threats recorded? The fact that people have said worse doesn't change the fact that it was a threat.
Oops, I completely misinterpreted your comment. Not sure what etiquette says, but I feel silly and am removing mine.
I agree that this person saying "you guys are next" is not a threat to the degree that it should be chargeable, and that she's being made an example of.
Just want to point out that your example implies domestic violence is a lower level of violence, and as such this shouldn't count as a real threat?
Reading comprehension ain't for everyone.
Edit: on some reflection that might be a rude reply if you don't already know that domestic violence threats in the US are largely ignored.
Thanks for the reflection edit! I don't think I'm stupid, but you're right that I didn't read your comment correctly. Do you want me to remove my original reply?
Edit: decided to remove
I recommend doing it like I did below the horizontal lines down there 👇
_btw, tap me 4 formatting tip_
To strike through, use ~~ before and after the offending text:
~~This text would be strike’d~~
The United States has the most equitable healthcare system on earth.Edit: sorry about that, cat stepped on my keyboard
For something really embarrassing -
Original embarrassing comment:
I hate Star Trek
Newly edited comment:
edit: removed opinion I reconsidered
There's no direct threat there more than saying the boogeyman will get you. People threaten marginalized communities like this on TV, radio and social media every day with no impunity because it's just vague enough not to count because stochastic terrorism is totally cool for SOME people.
Seems like free speech to me?
First amendment doesn't cover true threats. So it all kinda depends on context and whether who it was said to felt as though they were in real danger.
Bullshit. Denying life saving care is a much much much more direct threat to life, as are abortion denials. The concept of a true threat depends mainly on whether you are an acceptable threat maker or not.
Except if you are actively dying and I refuse to help in my personal capacity, I'm not threatening to harm you. I'm just not helping you from imminent harm (presuming I didn't cause that imminent harm). Now if you're on fire and I'm currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it's shitty of me to not help. But if you're in a gunfight with someone and you're asking me to render aid as they are still a threat, sorry pal.
E: Apparently some ignorant idealists don't like making a distinction. Tough shit. From a legal standpoint, that's how it works.
Now if you're on fire and I'm currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it's shitty of me to not help.
Inaction is still an action. If you have the ability to save someone and you let them die, you may as well have started the fire yourself.
The only real point you have is that you don't render aid when there's an active threat.
I’m just not helping you from imminent harm
Doesn't the law protect that in some way? I thought medical professionals were compelled to save lives first and then "worry" about costs later with the Hippocratic Oath and all. Or maybe it's limited to some instances? Idk, I'm not from the US and our system works way differently.
That is a "good Samaritan" law. They can compel you to help, but that could be calling law enforcement. That's also why in my examples the gunfight still had a deadly threat. No laws compel you to put yourself in danger to help.
Hot take here in Lemmy. Get it while it's still hot!
That doesn't seem like a true threat to me.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/true-threats
A person speaking out of anger who the person does not have a real reason to fear and believe they'll follow through is not a true threat. Saying "you're next" is clearly hyperbole. There's no chance she loses this case. They're just trying to make an example out of her for the moment to scare other people.
You might say it is a true threat in and of itself. There is very good reason for people to believe the state will arrest more people who use this speech. They're assuming this is true, because they want them to fear them in order to stop them. This is what we call terrorism, except it's the state doing it so I guess it's totally fine.
Even more importantly, it matters who you're threatening. Your wife? Meh, no biggie. An insurance company? Straight to jail.
Talk to any call center worker at any shitty company in the US and they'll tell you they've heard the same thing or worse before. This isn't new for shitty companies at all, they're just trying to make it seem like it's new in response to this situation and not something that they've been ignoring for decades.
Ohh good point. Have a call center friend; heard stories...
"a bit hostile" -> straight to jail
Do not threaten commerce, they don't tolerate that. The money must flow at all costs.
I can agree with your statement, but is it an act of terrorism? I don't think her threat should be categorized as terrorism.
I don't think it's terrorism either as I understand. Terrorism targets citizens for leverage.
Clearly she was saying that they were next to receive a gift basket for all their hard work in denying claims for profit