Lakeland woman was charged Tuesday after police said she ended a call to an insurance company with the words, “Delay, Deny, Depose.”
You must log in or register to comment.
They set $100K bond and she could get a 15 year prison sentence!?!?!? That’s insane. Far far out of proportion to what she said. Obviously there’s no way she is any kind of a threat to anyone and they know it. But they’re going to fuck her over to make an example of her. What a dystopia we’re living in.
It feels like the elites “putting us in our place”. This is a form of torture, a sentence or threat of a sentence that is far too strict for the crime. Publicize it so the masses can see.
Feels like they’re trying to show us what happens when we get uppity with the billionaire class.
Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully there’s still rule of law, a judge throws it out, and maybe she can sue. Time will tell.
Time will tell
Weelll, lets say history tells it already.
No shit. There’s no need to “wait and see”. We see it every day.
I think it will backfire on them. I think “the elites” have lost control of the situation, and efforts like this are just throwing fuel on the fire.
By attempting to fill every blank surface, moment of silence, or peaceful thought with an advertisement they inadvertently snapped off the consent manufactorum they were dangling from. Thinking it was holding them back.
More likely, she’ll get a 100k settlement for the violation of her first amendment rights.
If she does… I know what I’m gonna be screaming 24/7
She won’t since her next words were, “You’re next.”
“You’re Next” is a prediction, not a threat. She is predicting the potentiality of a copycat with similar motives. She is fully within her first amendment rights to do that.
Her statement was enough to justify an investigation, but it was not enough to justify an arrest, or the bringing of charges. So, I predict that she has a good case for a settlement, and I predict that the amount of that settlement will be $100,000.
Too many people support the attractive suspect, find some loud lower class woman to use instead!!!
She’s lucky. They could have sent Israel after her for those hamas-level terrorist threats.
First amendment violation. I hope she sues the shit out of them.
Facebook up, delete a gym, hit a lawyer.
1A doesn’t cover threats of violence.
Unless there was an actual threat (I’m lazy I can’t be bothered to read the article. That’s why I’m in the comments) , deny delay depose isn’t a threat in any way. It’s a tactic that insurance agents use to boost profits. Saying that is merely showing your disgust with the practice.
“Delay, Deny, Defend” is the health insurance tactic a book was written about. You will notice there is a key difference between those words and what was said on the phone call.
The difference being a word that typically means remove from power. Not a threat. Any lawyer can get the case dismissed by showing the book with the original words in court and argue it’s a natural play on words anyone could come up with.
I was specifically correcting their impression that it was the health insurers’ slogan, rather than a reference to the shooting
But since you were also too lazy to read the article, it’s what was said next that really contributes to a threat
Near the end of the call, investigators said Boston could be heard stating, “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next.”
“You people are next” is a prediction, not a threat.
She followed it by saying they were next. Definitely a threat of violence.
You should read the article.
And you should stop licking boot so hard… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m a bootlicker for telling people to read the thing that they’re commenting on?
“Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next.” isn’t exactly a threat. Definitely not something that someone ought to be arrested for.
How is “delay, deny, depose” not a threat with current events? C’mon, that’s disingenuous.
It really is not, it doesn’t say that she will do the violence, merely that it may occur. It’s the same as the difference between ‘I will kill you!’ and ‘I hope you die!’
Lets say it is (it isn’t), why don’t you have the same kind of energy towards the people who have coined it as a tactic to deny people their healthcare and have taken thousands if not millions of lives as a result, and destroyed millions more, as you do for their victim who is turning their own phrase (so without the system to implement it like they do) back on them?
It’s because the taste of boot is just too appealing to some, and you can’t help but fight in your oppressors corner, defending them, as if one day they’ll notice you and be grateful for your loyalty and take you in and treat you like one of their own (or at least come for those not licking boot before they come for you). Your indoctrinated brain might be telling you you’re acting in your own best interest, but by doing it at the expense of your fellow working class people, you are exclusively serving those in power.
Why are you making any assumptions about what energy I have? I’m not defending health insurance here, mate.
Because it’s a fucking book title.
Almost a book title
Yeah, that’s why everybody’s been saying those words lately, because of a book that came out 14 years ago, and definitely not because of anything more recent and more notable. Right.
In what way did she threaten violence
You people are next.
As someone else said, sounds like a prediction, not a threat. To arrest a mother, who doesn’t own a weapon and has no criminal record, it’s insane to use that as justification for incarceration.
How do those boots taste?
It’s usually a bad idea to outright dismiss a perceived terroristic threat. While it might be a prediction and not a threat, that’s for the courts to decide, not the cops.
If someone referenced a very recent assassination and told me I was next, I would take that as a credible threat and call the cops.
If I told you I was going to shoot you, would you have any way to immediately validate that threat? Do you know if I own a gun? Can you find out in a reasonable time to defend yourself if I was being serious with such a threat? Whether or not she can carry out the threat is irrelevant to the threat being made.
How do those boots taste?
Congratulations on falling for the corpo propaganda and thinking that we should be fighting amongst ourselves.
If you said “I’m gonna be the cause of you being next”, that’s a threat. “You’re next” is not a threat. Also, next to what? Any good lawyer is gonna have a field day with this.
“You’re next” is not a threat.
Contextually, it 100% is a threat. She preceded “You people are next” with the same message left behind by Mangione at the scene of the murder, a recent event that everybody involved in the conversation was aware of. Sure, if that statement existed in a vacuum, it’d be an open-and-shut case, but it was part of a larger conversation.
Also:
she reportedly admitted to using those words during the call, telling detectives that “healthcare companies played games and deserved karma from the world because they are evil.”
So yeah… she’s gonna need a really good lawyer.
Regarding corporations promoting infighting: I’m defending the person who challenged the corporation. You’re defending the corporation. Jesus Christ dude
lmfao what? How do you think I’m defending a corporation? By explaining how threats work? Are you really that desperate to find a boogeyman that you’ll cannibalize your own team to get there? This lady made a threat, no matter how badly you may want to pretend otherwise. You may or may not think it’s wrong for her to have done so, but if you disagree that she did it, then you’re being willfully ignorant.
If I told you I was going to shoot you
That’s not what was said
I didn’t say it was.
What threat?
The part where she said, “You’re next.” Still not ceditable and should get tossed out of court.
What fucking hellscape are we living in? Even referencing the strategy of billion dollar insurance companies gets you arrested? I’m literally at my limit with how insane this has gotten.
She followed it by saying, “you people are next.” that’s the problem. The title buried the lead.
She was referencing words etched onto bullets that killed a healthcare CEO.
No shit, that’s her first amendment right.
The first amendment does not mean you can say anything you like, despite what people like to make of it.
It actually does a little though. As long as my words aren’t used to manipulate and cause suffering I’m allowed to say it.
This woman is absolutely allowed to say this, she didn’t shoot the guy so saying you’re next isn’t a threat. More of a warning or statement of observation. I don’t think she did anything wrong and a lawyer will easily argue this one out
The first amendment does protect your right to predict a copycat with the same motives as the original. Which is all she did here. There is no part of her statement that actually qualifies as a threat. “I’m going to make sure you people are next” would be a threat, but that’s not what she said.
[she] was charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism
How
Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next.
Probably the last sentence
She doesn’t even own a gun and seems to pose little tangible threat, yet they’re claiming intent to commit mass murder or terrorism. Its a ridiculous stretch from that little comment
You do realize that it’s possible to possess a weapon that isn’t registered to you, right?
Why would you not take a person referencing a recent assassination and telling you that you are next seriously? I’d 100% call the cops if that happened to me when I was a call center agent.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t have been followed up on but, given what we know now, it seems ridiculous to charge her with intent to commit a mass shooting or terrorist attack
You’d only think it was a credible threat if your system was so fucked up the powder keg was lit
Mass shootings are almost a daily occurrence in the US. Why wouldn’t you take the threat seriously?
If this person had actually shot up a call center and the FBI was found to have said, “Eh, they probably didn’t mean it that way,” people would be equally as outraged.
There’s a difference between investigating a possible threat, and attempting to prosecute. I suggest you learn it.
Her last sentence was a prediction, not a threat.
You can read her mind?
Yes, actually, I can, at least as far as legality is concerned. The way I can read her mind is by remembering “Presumption of innocence.” She is innocent unless and until the state proves her guilt beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
In this case, that means there must be zero ambiguity to her statement. If her statement can be reasonably interpreted in multiple ways, and at least one of those ways is innocent, that interpretation is the only interpretation the law is allowed to use.
So yes, as far as the law is concerned, I can, indeed, read her mind: She was predicting the actions of a copycat, not issuing a threat.
You’re talking about being found guilty of the crime. You can definitely be arrested for making a statement that in the context was a terroristic threat, and be found not guilty of the crime.
Her arrest was absolutely warranted. Her statement could easily mean that she planned on opening fire on the employees. Not taking that seriously in a country where mass shootings happen almost daily is very stupid.
We also don’t have all of the facts on the case. The police don’t release all of the details of their cases before trial.
No, the investigation might have been warranted. The arrest was not. The charges were not. Conducting an investigation is “taking that seriously”, but the results of that investigation did not justify an arrest or charges.
Her right to free speech was infringed upon.
The way I can read her mind is by remembering “Presumption of innocence.”
The way you think the world works and the way the world actually works are two entirely different things. The justice system exists to punish the poor, and punish rich people who have fucked over other rich people.
Even if she wins, she would only do so from pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyer fees as this case continues as one judge reviews it, it gets appealed, and then some other judge looks at it. Over the course of years, and she’ll be rotting in prison during that time. Because you know… the $100,000 fucking bond!
97% of the time, they take the plea deal, anyway.
The woman just means that the people she was talking to will be screwed over by insurance too.
She was saying we’re all in this together, basically!
Why was her claim denied? Guys? WHY WAS HER CLAIM DENIED?
I hear “self defense”
No, see, everyone is misunderstanding. She was threatening to commit mass murder by starting her own health insurance company and using the tried and true Delay, Deny, Depose method of profiting from murder.
Oh, this is fine then. Charges dismissed!
Somebody ought to rally like a million people to all call their insurance company on the same day and just say delay, deny, depose. If so many people do it, and they try to arrest everybody, they would be absolutely overwhelmed.
Careful tempting the state into violence - you might be surprised to the depths they’re willing to sink to and for how little. Nixon had the state guard execute peaceful student protesters - American kids!
If you haven’t heard about America’s own “Tiananmen square” before, here’s the link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
And then people wonder why state regimes get toppled.
The people working the phone lines are paycheck to paycheck and just trying to get by like the rest of us. I highly doubt they deserve that.
The judge is going to create the exact effect they’re trying to avoid with that $100,000 bond!
Make sure to give Luigi a few bucks. It’s over $70,000
deleted by creator
Well, it was on all the news websites. I mean, yeah… there is a chance. But, it’s pretty high profile right now, so they would really have to be shady to get past major national news.
I’m willing to take that chance. It’s over 80k, you don’t just get to walk away with that money. Someone will go down for it.
I’m willing to take the chance. What’s a few bucks? Besides if it turns out to be fake, you can just complain to your credit card company and they will reverse the charges.
Her words after this were “you people are next”
Kinda gives her less leeway here
I don’t think so tbh, at least for me personally. People in power have said way worse things
The difference is … people in power said those things.
Some animals are created more equal than others.
That’s a prediction.
It is by no means illegal to predict the likelihood of a copycat with the same motives as the original.
And unless you can conclusively prove her intent to commit harm, you can only investigate. You can’t arrest or charge her without violating her right to free speech.
Her prediction is entirely plausible. The general public is completely pissed at the entire industry over this kind of behavior.
I don’t care about THIS Parent! I ONLY care about RICH Parents like Brian Thompson!
deleted by creator
