• Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    169
    ·
    5 days ago

    Remember this the next time the cops tell someone they can’t do anything about a stalker or angry ex threatening to kill them until they actually act. They can do something. They choose not to.

  • shiroininja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    368
    ·
    6 days ago

    Threatening the hospital that was denying my father care, leaving him to die, was the only way I got into the literal board room to reason with them. I got them to resume treatment after they dicked around for a month and he refused to leave because he was going to die if he left.

    He still died because he was so sick at that point that they couldn’t do the procedure he needed when he first arrived.

    So I threatened them in 2010, and I’d fucking do it again now for my child. We are supposed to stand up for our loved ones.

    • obre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      137
      ·
      6 days ago

      It’s disgusting. There needs to be legal recognition of all that is at stake for patients and their families. The denial of necessary care is structural violence and should be treated as such by everyone.

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      5 days ago

      got them to resume treatment after they dicked around for a month and he refused to leave because he was going to die if he left.

      I had to play this card once, too. I was in the cardiac unit for 28 days, and they were going to send me home because they couldn’t figure out what was wrong, and the insurance decided I wasn’t worth the expense anymore.

      I refused to leave until they gave me a diagnosis, because i would have just died otherwise.

      Pretty sure the healthcare system still wants that.

      • shiroininja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        Financial extermination. But threat of violence would’ve been my next step in trial and error. It’s my family… I’d do anything for them. People even told me I should’ve. It was a tough situation and I was young. A little younger than Luigi.

  • RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    “You people are next” does seem pretty threat-ish, however:

    After being charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, a judge set Boston’s bond at $100,000.

    That is completely out of touch with what happened. “You people are next” not an act of terrorism.

    • na_th_an@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 days ago

      It’s hard for me to agree this is a threat after media has spent years explaining why all of Trump’s language is actually never threatening or inciting violence, even after his language incited violence.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yeah, I’m pretty sure they realized they were never going to convict her of anything. Protected speech that also references a wildly popular killing is just not something you’re going to be able to convict over.

  • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    From the article’s source article:

    “She’s been in this world long enough that she certainly should know better that you can’t make threats like that in the current environment that we live in and think that we’re not going to follow up and put you in jail,” said Lakeland Police Chief Sam Taylor.

    I thought we had a legal definition of a real threat, and this isn’t it.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    Attorneys have said the insurance industry uses a “delay, deny, defend” tactic to withhold health care services.

    Jailed for using words to describe what insurance companies do?

    Judge is trying to fill their year-end quota.

    • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,” she allegedly said near the end of the call.

      Let’s be real, the “You people are next” is probably the reason for jail.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        “You people are next…”

        “… 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.

        • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          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.

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            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.

            • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              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).

              • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                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.

      • Oijkuij@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

      • 4lan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        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

        • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          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

    • joker125@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      116
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Funny part is insurance companies hear worse than this all day long however this is their trigger.

      L O L

      • shadowfax13@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        previously it was at some poor customer support agent in a 3rd world country, now the danger is to the mega donors oligarchy club members.

        won’t be tolerated.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      You people are next

      Yea this part is not gonna look good in court.

      Just those 3 words without adding more would sound less bad, might not have gotten out of the arrest, but adding “You people are next” just ensured the arrest and charges.

      • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        89
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yet, if some citizen tells another citizen directly, “I’m going to kill you until you are dead,” and that second citizen then goes to the police to report it, the police will respond, “we have no proof other than your hearsay, person one has to actually commit some act of violence before we can even issue a restraining order (worthless) let alone do any ‘police work.’”

        This is how it acts in citizen-to-citizen interaction in the real world. A business gets special treatment versus a citizen, yet again.

        (Regardless of how crass or inappropriate her angry comment was. Remember: America lets Nazis exist because “free speech” - it’s a huge hypocrisy.)

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          In the Article:

          According to the affidavit, 42-year-old Briana Boston used the phrase during a call with BlueCross BlueShield about a denied claim.

          Her problem is that she said it over the phone, every company records all phone calls, they always have an automatic voice saying “this call will be recorded for quality and training purposes” that makes anything you say after implied to have given consent for the recording, bypassing any two-party comsent laws.

          I don’t dispute the fact that corporations and rich people have preferrential treatment, but having evidence like a phone call recording is what’s ultimately gonna get law enforcement to act.

          If you have a video of someone saying “I’m gonna get my gun and shoot you until your’re dead” to your face, that would probably have higher chances of getting law enforcement to act rather than just a “he said she said” heresay. No guarantees that they’ll act (cops are mostly lazy and don’t wanna do their jobs), but its much much better than just you claiming they threatened you without providing any evidence.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 days ago

            that makes anything you say after implied to have given consent for the recording, bypassing any two-party comsent laws.

            That… doesn’t sound like two party consent to me. Are you saying that I can tell someone “I’m recording this call” and they don’t have to actually consent, they just have to not mention it?

            • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              You can’t secretly record phone calls in two party consent states. But you can say “Just so you know, this phone call is being recorded” and if they continue to talk, they are implicitly giving consent. At least that’s how it always have worked, otherwise it would’ve been illegal for basically every company to record phone calls. Every called customer service for any reason? Notice how they all tell you that the call is recorded? Its been like this since I ever learned about phone calls. If it’s illegal, you’d be hearing about lawsuits all the time.

              • Vespair@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 days ago

                But you can say “Just so you know, this phone call is being recorded” and if they continue to talk, they are implicitly giving consent

                Which makes it kind of bullshit and not two-party, since in many cases this is effectively the only means of communicating with these companies. There is no real option to not consent, especially in the case of healthcare companies, since it’s not like a person can just choose to not have a body with real medical concerns (and in the US you legally can’t even go uninsured without penalty). Calling this “two party” at this point is a fucking joke.

                • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  You can literally choose to not say anything about threatening or murdering someone over a recorded call.

              • dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                Makes sense. I don’t usually call customer service - I tend to use email or social media where possible, so that I have everything in writing with timestamps, just in case I need to refer back to it or use it as evidence.

                Does that mean I can also record them?

                • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  You can. I’d also say “Just letting you know, I’m recording this phone call” just to be on the safe side.

                  I mean you could always make illegal recordings and you won’t get arrested, its just that it might not be admissible in court.

                  And if you live in a one-party consent state, its always legal to record, even when the other person is in a two-party consent state, even without informing or getting consent.

              • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                And if you hang up you can’t deal with the claim denial. So really, wouldn’t that start to tread the line of coercion? If you don’t consent to being recorded we’ll continue to deny healthcare.

            • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 days ago

              Some states you don’t even need that. I live in a one-party state, so I wouldn’t need to tell someone they’re being recorded, as long as I knew they were.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          If you have a recording of someone threatening to kill you, the police can absolutely act.

          Threatening to kill someone unless they give you what you want is not protected speech. Otherwise, you could walk into a bank, demand they give you money under threat of violence, then walk out having committed no crimes.

          • InputZero@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            I’m sorry to say, but that’s not necessarily true. It would need to be a police recording or record of someone threatening you for them to actually have to do anything. You could walk into a precinct with a bona fide video of someone making a serious threat to your life and the police typically won’t do anything about it. That same person could make a clip about murdering you and post it online with a clear plan to kill you and the police still wouldn’t have to act. All of that is hearsay, regardless of how serious the intent is and the police can choose to ignore it. Unless it’s someone worth helping, someone who might be able to make a sizable donation.

            • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              The police doesn’t have to act if a person drags another person into the precinct and murders them in front of all the cops according stupid US courts (Warren v. District of Columbia).

              That’s why 2a and self-defense are such important rights. You want to be safe? Better take care of it yourself (or elect a 3rd party that will change the status quo, but fantasy solutions don’t count).

          • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            5 days ago

            Remember the time Lemmy was so outraged at the elections that they, un ironically, became Unabomber stans

      • Verqix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        She didn’t say she was going to be involved in whatever the “next” thing ment. Might have been a heart-felt warning against vigilantes.Also, the “next” thing might well have been “…to get much needed care denied”.

        Legally this is so flimsy it’s a waste of time. Looking at wording from politicians there’s way more direct calls to violence which will never be prosecuted. In practice it shows the pull of big corporations with cops, and inconveniences the life of an already inconvenienced person.

      • SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        I was literally told by some dude that “if I see you again, I’ll fucking kill you” while I was walking my dog at night around my town’s library. I told the police and they didn’t do jack shit. Whereas this lady gets a hit by a $100,000 bond?

      • gift_of_gab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        It’s weird, because I took it to mean that the people she’s talking to are going to be denied insurance in some way next.

        I mean we can assume, and it’s fairly likely, that it was a reference to the assassination, but American court is fucked if this is enough.

  • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    5 days ago

    They think they’re making an example. That this will have a chilling effect.

    They’re wrong. All this is going to do is radicalize even more people. As it should.

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    Remember folks, the company reps you interact with are generally not the ones making the rules they are paid to abide by. They’re working for a living, just like us.

    With that, calling this an “act of terrorism” is an incredulous overreaction that just goes to show how badly they’re shitting their pants right now.

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      They’re working for a living, just like us.

      They’re part of the machine that sucks the blood of the people. I wouldn’t advocate violence, but they’re not worthy of our respect.

    • DrDystopia@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      I’ve quit jobs because of ethical concerns before, these people don’t make a living just like me.

      • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Imagine having the privilege of not having to compromise your morals because you can get a job just like that in this economy

        Edit: yes, y’all apparently are rocks or trees. The rest of us need to eat for sustenance and have responsibilities beyond " what news headline will garner my outrage today"

        • DrDystopia@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Imagine not compromising my morals cost me a lot. Time after time. But as someone with a strong consciousness, I know it will cost me more to compromise on my personal values. It’s just that it’s not a monetary cost.

          You sound like an economical slave, why do you accept the situation?

          • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            You sound like an economical slave, why do you accept the situation?

            Because I need food and shelter otherwise I die.

            • aquafunkalisticbootywhap@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              there is shelter and food, plenty to go around- it’s being locked behind an amoral paywall.

              do the moral things at your job and get fired over it. make it clear when you apply elsewhere why you were fired.

              if we’re being forced to choose between doing the right thing and surviving, the system is broken AND those hoarding obscene amounts, living in luxury, making the decisions to further screw customers and employees in the name of investors and executives need to be addressed, one way or another.

              …Im not saying any of this is easy, but the other option seems to be just try to be happy with the scraps they let us fight over? no thank you.

        • chakan2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I took that job and quit a month in for the same reason. I’d rather be in crippling debt than compromise my morals that badly. I couldn’t do it and look at myself in the mirror in the morning.

        • Blackrook7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          That’s exactly how they want you to think and be.
          Angry at those with even a modicum more. But keep doing at Walmart and Amazon and every other conglomerate.

    • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      We learned about individual responsibilities before, the slaying of poors is not just making a living, it’s not the corporate entity that is the evil it is the henchmen that have individual rights to say stop just like any soldier that is told to rape and plunder innocents

  • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Nothing like jail time to radicalized someone more. Judge is playing 5d cheese by providing motivation.

  • uis@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 days ago

    First “witch” burned by inquisition of capitalism