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.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not protect speech that threatens or incites violence.
Is it really a threat though? Idk. She's repeating some words and saying "you're next", but not what they're next for.
You're next....to get no health insurance cover.
It seems pretty obvious what she was implying, but that's what a trial is for. She may not have meant it, but it is clearly a threat of violence.
In all honesty it can be perceived as them being next in getting their claim denied and not only as the threat it as well be perceived.
It's so very close to Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don't Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It that it could as well be a misunderstanding as a threat.They are going to have a tough time proving that in court. I bet this will get pleaded out to some small charge though.
If someone referenced a recent assassination then said, "You people are next," would you seriously not take that as a threat?
I worked in a call center for several years and received no shortage of bizarre threats. Never once did I feel that any of the threats were worth being concerned about. Granted these would be threats over lack of warranty coverage on usually budget model phones so very different from health insurance where the dollar values and stakes are many orders of magnitude higher
I might.
That doesn't necessarily prove it was meant this way and because we're talking potential criminal offense it has to be proven it was meant as a threat if I'm not mistaken.Yes, that's proven in the courts, not by the cops.
She said something that could easily be taken for a terroristic threat, given the context. It would be a bad thing to not take terroristic threats seriously. Whether she was being serious or not is irrelevant regarding her arrest.
If she were a parrot yeah sure, but there she is, and yet, featherless
Without the means to do it it’s not a threat.
Incorrect
How do you know she didn't have means to do it?
That’s up for the
copscourts to prove. This is a sham case. If trump said that shit he would be applauded “oh that’s just trump being trump!”He literally said that Liz Cheney in the face, and nothing happened.
No, that's up to the courts and investigators to prove. Cops did the right thing here, for once.
That’s what I meant