Woman charged with threatening healthcare firm by using CEO killer's words
Woman charged with threatening healthcare firm by using CEO killer's words
Authorities say she echoed words connected to the murder when she allegedly said "delay, deny, depose, you people are next".
Summary
Briana Boston, 42, was charged with threatening a health insurance company after repeating words linked to the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
During a recorded call with Blue Cross Blue Shield about a denied claim, Boston said, "Delay, deny, depose, you people are next," echoing phrases engraved on bullet casings at Thompson’s murder scene.
Authorities allege she exploited the CEO’s homicide to make the threat.
Boston, a mother of three with no prior criminal record, was arrested and held on $100,000 bail amidst warnings of potential copycat incidents targeting healthcare executives.
You're viewing a single thread.
Without knowing more, it is the “you people are next” that makes this a threat in particular. You should easily be able to say deny defend or depose or whatever, just don’t use threats
Hence why we have an actual standard for this...
A random housewife giving a vague threat at the end of an already heated call by referencing a recent event involving the company, really doesn't come close to the definition.
this isn't a first amendment issue.
It's illegal to shout "BOMB!" in an airport even if there is no bomb, and you have no intention of setting one off. further, it's also illegal to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
It's also pretty much illegal everywhere to call in bomb threats or similar, even merely as a prank.
this isn’t a first amendment issue.
It very much is.
It’s also pretty much illegal everywhere to call in bomb threats or similar, even merely as a prank.
Hence why there is a legal distinction for true threats like that... which you chose to completely ignore for whatever reason (probably because it negates your entire comment).
It's not any different than telling someone that you wish they'd die. That's not a threat. No one in their right mind would think she, herself, was making a direct threat against anyone at the company based on the context of the conversation. Only dumbfuck keyboard warriors on the internet trying to look smart but too lazy to click any links because it might conflict with their idea of reality.
How to tell no one has ever threatened you.
Glad you live a safe law protected by laws.
I’ve worked contract security and have had people threaten me over being told they can’t park in a handicap space to pick up their spouse.
I’ve had those same people then try and follow me home, then tell the cops we happened to be going the same way. (Despite it being hours later.)
You cannot tell who will and who won’t.
A threat was communicated and a threat was meant to be communicated. That’s enough to satisfy the first amendment’s need for subjective “intention.”
Which is why this isn’t a first amendment issue. Boston meant what she said, and we know that; because she doubled down on it with the cops.
It isn’t the intention to carry out the threat, it’s the intention to make the threat.
How to tell no one has ever threatened you.
I've worked front line call center just like this situation. I've had a shit ton of threats. None of them were ever going to do shit, most of them were much worse than what she said.
If her statement is the bar, then at least 3/4 of calls into any customer service number would result in an arrest. If we're going to apply the law equally, then we need to apply it equally and arrest 3/4 of the population.
In person threats are a completely different situation than an escalated customer service call.
This is a common misconception. It's not illegal to say anything like "bomb" or "fire" in a public place, at all.
What you could get charged with in those situations is something like, "inciting a riot", or "disorderly conduct". These depend on how people around you react to your words or actions, but doesn't depend on the actual words used.
So you’re saying it’s illegal? Yup. You are!
Also note, there’s the argument that the threat itself was disorderly etc, and the reason these laws stand is because; generally, people have a right to not be living under the fear such threats cause.
Trust me, if these kinds of statements were protected speech, we’d live in a much, much worse place.
But they’re not.
She intended to communicate a threat of violence. It doesn’t matter if she could carry it out, on reasonable person can know that- in the context of that phone call. Or even in the context of the conversation with the cops later.
Its not illegal, though. I can go out into public right now and say it with no repercussions. If it was illegal, how would anyone possibly inform other people of actual fires and bombs?
The thing that is illegal is causing a panic in a large group of people. Has nothing to do with the words used.
I just feel that the nuance is important. Any combination of words could get you in trouble if it happens to cause a riot.
It's a threat. They just have no reason to belive she, in particular, should be believed. It's not a true threat, by legal standards. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm very confident of this. This is an obvious miscarriage of justice. Throwing a threat out in anger or frustration does not make a true threat.
Also she never said she would be the one to do it just that they would be next.
Right, because anger and frustration aren’t predictors of murderous behavior at all.
They are explicitly given as reasons other cases have been deemed not true threats, yeah. People are likely to throw threats out meaninglessly when angry. It's not a good predictor of if they'll actually follow through. There are other factors that are, like the victims history with the person and the persons past behavior. Just a threat in anger is not a true threat, based on existing legal precedence.
and then when the cops came, she admitted to it, and continued on saying stuff like "they're evil" and "They deserve karma"
like. Okay. The insurance peeps are fucking evil. she's not wrong.
but maybe don't tell the cops that? maybe shut the fuck up and get a lawyer.
Every day is shut the fuck up Friday
Hit lawyer, gym up
Pointing out that someone's behaviour matches that which caused something bad to happen to someone else when you are not the one who did that bad thing to someone else is not a fucking threat
Or you know, the person stops being a pussy and answers "yeah yeah sure lady".
99% of the threats aren't real. And if you are not scared of a threat because you know it's BS, you have not really been threatened now have you?
Not to mention, how many threats do those workers get in the average day? I'm betting it's a number north of zero, and a lot more clearly threatening, and just as recorded.
I have no idea the stats on this but from everyone I've known who's worked call centers for things way less critical than whether the caller gets live saving care or not, I would be shocked if they don't get daily threats, and I'm betting none of them are taken seriously or charged.
What's the difference? Who the threat is directed at. The rest are directed at the poor reps who are probably just trying to survive in a soul crushing job, while this references killing someone actually "important": the people in charge
After you reference a killing, and then say “you are next”, that’s a threat.
The blatant implication is that the person they’re talking to is the next to get killed.
It really is quite clear.
It might be an empty threat, but the blue cross person can’t know that.
You're saying it's simple. It's really not as simple as you think. The legal requirement is a true threat. (Google it) Just threatening someone in anger or frustration has been ruled to not be a true threat. They need a reason to believe you'll follow through. This clearly is not that. It's bullshit. It is purely done as an act of terrorism by the state. They want people to fear even mentioning the killer's message.
They need a reason to believe you’ll follow through. This clearly is not that. It’s bullshit.
you don't think they have a reason? I do. and they clearly did, or they'd never have reported it to cops.
Remember, we're talking about a phone rep for a fucking hated health insurance company. They're used to dealing with angry people. they deal with them every other phone call.
Like you said, they deal with angry customers all the time. Why would they suspect this person is any different? It's just about sending a message. They want us to be scared to ever bring it up, so they need to make an example out of some people.
or. just hear me out here. the lady really was scared because there's something there.
Even if it doesn't rise to the level of being criminality, it's still a threat, and that employee felt threatened enough to report it. do you really think anyone is actually scared to talk about it? I'm not. you're not. Nobody else here isn't either.
It's a threat, yeah. True threat is what's required by the law. You can't just arrest everyone who makes a threat and hold them on $100,000 bail. That'd be insane.
do you really think anyone is actually scared to talk about it?
Yes. The judge just about admitted that was the purpose of setting the bail so high. You don't get a bail set at $100,000 for a non-violent offender with family and no flight risk generally. It's purely intimidation. They don't want people to threaten the ultra-wealthy's money, but the state is encouraged to threaten the people to make them stop.
After you reference a killing, and then say “you are next”, that’s a threat.
Nope, even you say so:
The blatant implication is that the person they’re talking to is the next to get killed.
Notice how its not that the person speaking will do it even in your own rewording? That's how it's not a threat
They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.
It doesn’t matter if she’s the one doing the killing, doesn’t matter if it was “serious”, they used the threat of violence.
It’s really that simple. You’re arguing a technicality that does not exist. Any reasonable person being on the other end of that line would have interpreted it as a threat. Period. Full stop.
Maybe the lady shouldn’t have been denied. That’s probably true. She still made a threat; and she did so on a line that we all know is being recorded.
I don’t know that it needs more than a “don’t do that”, but saying it wasn’t a threat is factually and legally incorrect.
It doesn’t matter if she’s the one doing the killing, doesn’t matter if it was “serious”, they used the threat of violence.
It literally does matter legally, which is what's being discussed surrounding her arrest, by law enforcement, and her bail being set by a Justice in a court of law.
Please, before continuing further, do some reading on "true threat," which is the legal requirement.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/true-threats
Before you continue to bitch about "true threat"...
you should probably go back and read the article again. This isn't a 1A issue. She was not somehow prevented from her speech (that is the threat,) and was quite successful in delivering that speech.
Boston is being charged under Florida law. specifically statute 836.10.2b which makes it illegal to:
(2) It is unlawful for any person to send, post, or transmit, or procure the sending, posting, or transmission of, a writing or other record, including an electronic record, in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person, when in such writing or record the person makes a threat to:
(a) Kill or to do bodily harm to another person; or
(b) Conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism.Again, her first amendment rights were never violated.
another statute that may be of significance here is 836.5, which makes it illegal to issue a threat for the purpose of extorting money (or other gains).
Edit to add: the threat doesn't need to be serious, and not having a firearm doesn't make it okay to threaten people. Is it dubious she had the physical ability to conduct the threat? absolutely. Was it stated in a moment of frustration and anger? certainly. Do I completely understand and sympathize with that anger? fucking absolutely.
however. She still issued a threat. which, if you don't want cops showing up at your door, don't issue a threat to someone whose just doing their job- even if their job is to railroad you and deny medical care; on a recorded phone call. and then don't admit to it to the cops, and then continue saying shit like "they're evil" and "They deserve karma"
of fucking course she got arrested.
To any one reading this, here's the best free legal advice anyone can give you: SHUT THE FUCK UP. When the cops knock on your door. they are INVESTIGATING YOU. shut the fuck up and get a lawyer. Don't admit to anything. don't continue blathering on about how "they deserve it". That's how you get arrested. Boston literally did their work for them.
edit 2: you might want to look at the MTSU article you dropped. It states it rather plainly:
True threats constitute a category of speech — like obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and the advocacy of imminent lawless action — that is not protected by the First Amendment and can be prosecuted under state and federal criminal laws. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat, but the prosecution must prove that he or she intended to communicate a threat. Cases that have reached the Supreme Court in recent years have involved threats made over social media.
(emphasis mine)
They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.
Not really.
The call center rep likely gets daily death threats working that hellish job, ones far more direct. Ones that didn't get the person arrested.
She implied someone at the top was going to be targeted. You know, someone the company actually cares about.
They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.
That's called a warning, threats only can come from people who intend to act
"You're going to be next if you keep acting like this" is t a threat. "I'm going to make you the next one" is
Its really that simple
there's a big distinction between the two, in that warnings generally involve actions that are legal (like defending yourself, or cops arresting people, etc), vs threats that are actions which illegal ("give me your wallet or I"ll kill you".)
Also, generally speaking, warnings frequently include things that are natural or legal consequences for your actions. "If you continue to harass X, you'll be arrested", is a warning, "if you don't put down the gun, I will shoot" is a warning. "If you swim during a riptide, you'll be pulled out to sea" is a warning. "Approve my claim or i'll kill you" is not a warning. it's a threat.
"Approve my claim or i'll kill you" is not a warning. it's a threat.
Yep that would be a threat. That's not what she said though. She never said she'd do anything. She was just pointing out that someone was recently killed for the behavior they're exhibiting, so if they're going to keep doing that behavior, it stands to reason the same thing will happen to them.
Again. It’s not what she said. It’s what she communicated.
She communicated a threat.
Same as if, for example, somebody walks up on you and says “get in the car.” While patting a gun in their waistband.
The guy never said he’d shoot you, but you understand that he will.
Similarly she referenced a killing and said that they’re next. The implicit understanding is that she would do it. That’s what she communicated. A threat.
Again. It’s not what she said. It’s what she communicated.
No, it's not, you're being very weird putting words in someone's mouth
Same as if, for example, somebody walks up on you and says “get in the car.” While patting a gun in their waistband.
Oh, she had a gun now?
Similarly she referenced a killing and said that they’re next
After they denied her claim, referencing a recent cultural event
The implicit understanding is that she would do it
Only to a complete idiot. Like you, apparently
I understood it as "blue cross is next"
She did not say "I am going to kill you" She did not say "I'm going to execute your CEO"
She was warning them that if they continue their actions someone will do something.
What she said is fully protected by the first amendment. Anyone trying to say that it is a threat is licking on a boot like they found an ice cream bar on a deserted island.
The context you’re hearing it is vastly different. You’re removed from the comments, and weren’t-probably- already getting botched out by an angry Boston.
She said it to a specific person. In the context of a phone call with a specific person, “you people” included the person on the other end of the line.
Btw, I’ve been involved in dozens of similar cases here. Where people have made threats similar against my employees.
These laws are commonly enforced. And you’ll notice they’re not being overturned any time soon. You can say that all you want, but the first amendment doesn’t let you scare people into doing what you want by making threats of violence against them.
That’s not protected speech.
She'd have to be much more specific. It's completely ambiguous.
I have to agree with you, mostly.
The system gets to make the rules and even if she didn’t say, "you people are next" I think they’d still be doing this. Corpos control our justice system and they will not tolerate us glorifying Luigi Mangione (please jurors look up "nullification”)
That was my thought as well. If she left it at DDD, that's just showing opposition. "You people are next" is a pretty clear threat.
Fuck the insurance companies, but be smart about how.
Sounded more like a prediction to me