1051
Woman jailed after using shooting suspect's catchphrase as insurance company denied claim.
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
1051 points (99.1% liked)
News
23634 readers
2982 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
How do you know she didn't have means to do it?
That’s up for the ~~cops~~ courts 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 should be shot 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
Incorrect