Woman jailed after using shooting suspect's catchphrase as insurance company denied claim
www.rawstory.com
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...
    • Bronzebeard@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      10 days ago

      Depose is the assassin’s addition, not part of the healthcare tactics. You can’t depose someone who’s already at the bottom

      • Kitathalla@lemy.lolEnglish
        0·
        10 days ago

        Clearly what we all mean when we say depose is get them in front of a lawyer asking questions on the record.

  • Allonzee@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 days ago

    Ah yes, more of that freedom we crow so much about as our brand.

    The company she spoke to is free to take her premium payments for years, then to kill her through claim denial, and she’s free say “thank you for taking my premiums all those years and now denying my claim” and then die quietly.

    Herp derp Freedom🇺🇸

      • AAA@feddit.org
        0·
        10 days ago

        No they don’t, and you know it. There will be less in person meetings tho. Or at least more often at retreat locations, not at the usual headquarters.

  • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    0·
    11 days ago

    I imagine the “Delay, Deny, Depose” didn’t get her in trouble nearly as much as the “You people are next” part. Yeah, that’s a bit hostile there.

    • zaph@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      10 days ago

      I’ve met victims of domestic violence who were threatened much worse than “you guys are next” so I’m not buying this as anything other than the system trying to use her as an example.

      • tamal3@lemmy.world
        0·
        10 days ago

        Just want to point out that your example implies domestic violence is a lower level of violence, and as such this shouldn’t count as a real threat?

        I agree that this person saying “you guys are next” is not a threat to the degree that it should be chargeable, and that she’s being made an example of. That’s just not the reason I would site. I would site that she seemingly didn’t have any actual intention to hurt anyone, nor would she have even known who she was talking to on the phone. It’s ridiculous for police to have gotten involved to the degree they did.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          10 days ago

          I recommend doing it like I did below the horizontal lines down there 👇

          btw, tap me 4 formatting tip

          To strike through, use ~~ before and after the offending text:

          ~~This text would be strike’d~~

          The United States has the most equitable healthcare system on earth.

          Edit: sorry about that, cat stepped on my keyboard

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          10 days ago

          For something really embarrassing -

          Original embarrassing comment:

          I hate Star Trek

          Newly edited comment:

          edit: removed opinion I reconsidered

        • zaph@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          10 days ago

          Just want to point out that your example implies domestic violence is a lower level of violence, and as such this shouldn’t count as a real threat?

          Reading comprehension ain’t for everyone.

          • tamal3@lemmy.world
            0·
            10 days ago

            Thanks for the reflection edit! I don’t think I’m stupid, but you’re right that I didn’t read your comment correctly. Do you want me to remove my original reply?

            Edit: decided to remove

    • frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io
      0·
      10 days ago

      There’s no direct threat there more than saying the boogeyman will get you. People threaten marginalized communities like this on TV, radio and social media every day with no impunity because it’s just vague enough not to count because stochastic terrorism is totally cool for SOME people.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 days ago

      Please, marginalized people get more explicitly threatening crap said to them all the time and people rarely get arrested or charged for that. She’s being charged because the system wants to make an example out of her. The judge basically said so himself at the bail hearing,

      “I do find that the bond of $100,000 is appropriate considering the status of our country at this point,” the judge said.

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        0·
        10 days ago

        They need to appeal this. Clear judicial error. If he wouldn’t have done this 3 weeks ago legally he can’t do it now.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        9 days ago

        100k for a threat made in reaction to what was likely fear for her life, or the life of her loved one.

        It’s pretty amazingly cruel.

      • ArtieShaw@fedia.io
        0·
        10 days ago

        Ouch. “This place is a shit show,” the judge said. (Not really, just fixed it for him).

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        0·
        10 days ago

        Not saying you are wrong about the marginalized, but in this case she said, what could be considered threatening, a call to a health care provider that was not only actionable, but entirely recorded.

        “The system” won’t make an example out of her, “Exhibit A” will. That’s the difference.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          0·
          10 days ago

          It’s both.

          $100k bond for a threat that is neither specific nor credible is absurd.

          If it were a first time offender threat against a normal person (which is more specific), at most it would result in probation and a restraining order.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 days ago

      Talk to any call center worker at any shitty company in the US and they’ll tell you they’ve heard the same thing or worse before. This isn’t new for shitty companies at all, they’re just trying to make it seem like it’s new in response to this situation and not something that they’ve been ignoring for decades.

      • dan1101@lemm.ee
        0·
        10 days ago

        Do not threaten commerce, they don’t tolerate that. The money must flow at all costs.

    • robocall@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 days ago

      I can agree with your statement, but is it an act of terrorism? I don’t think her threat should be categorized as terrorism.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        0·
        10 days ago

        I don’t think it’s terrorism either as I understand. Terrorism targets citizens for leverage.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 days ago

      Clearly she was saying that they were next to receive a gift basket for all their hard work in denying claims for profit

      • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
        0·
        11 days ago

        First amendment doesn’t cover true threats. So it all kinda depends on context and whether who it was said to felt as though they were in real danger.

        • samus12345@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          10 days ago

          Even more importantly, it matters who you’re threatening. Your wife? Meh, no biggie. An insurance company? Straight to jail.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
          0·
          10 days ago

          That doesn’t seem like a true threat to me.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/true-threats

          A person speaking out of anger who the person does not have a real reason to fear and believe they’ll follow through is not a true threat. Saying “you’re next” is clearly hyperbole. There’s no chance she loses this case. They’re just trying to make an example out of her for the moment to scare other people.

          You might say it is a true threat in and of itself. There is very good reason for people to believe the state will arrest more people who use this speech. They’re assuming this is true, because they want them to fear them in order to stop them. This is what we call terrorism, except it’s the state doing it so I guess it’s totally fine.

        • frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io
          0·
          10 days ago

          Bullshit. Denying life saving care is a much much much more direct threat to life, as are abortion denials. The concept of a true threat depends mainly on whether you are an acceptable threat maker or not.

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            0·
            10 days ago

            Except if you are actively dying and I refuse to help in my personal capacity, I’m not threatening to harm you. I’m just not helping you from imminent harm (presuming I didn’t cause that imminent harm). Now if you’re on fire and I’m currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it’s shitty of me to not help. But if you’re in a gunfight with someone and you’re asking me to render aid as they are still a threat, sorry pal.

            • Lemminary@lemmy.world
              0·
              10 days ago

              I’m just not helping you from imminent harm

              Doesn’t the law protect that in some way? I thought medical professionals were compelled to save lives first and then “worry” about costs later with the Hippocratic Oath and all. Or maybe it’s limited to some instances? Idk, I’m not from the US and our system works way differently.

              • meco03211@lemmy.world
                0·
                10 days ago

                That is a “good Samaritan” law. They can compel you to help, but that could be calling law enforcement. That’s also why in my examples the gunfight still had a deadly threat. No laws compel you to put yourself in danger to help.

            • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              10 days ago

              Now if you’re on fire and I’m currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it’s shitty of me to not help.

              Inaction is still an action. If you have the ability to save someone and you let them die, you may as well have started the fire yourself.

              The only real point you have is that you don’t render aid when there’s an active threat.

  • Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 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.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        0·
        10 days ago

        Fear can be a very powerful motivator, as everyone one rent check away from the street knows. It’s time for the leeches to feel some of that fear

        • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
          0·
          10 days ago

          You need to reread what the judge said when he set her bail. When the rich become afraid for their lives they send their law enforcement after those people they are afraid of and they fill the jails that they own with the people who have inspired their fear.

          All this fervor is not going to result in a changing of healthcare. Not with our newly minted Republican Congress and a douche canoe for a president. No all of this is going to result in a curbing of our free speech rights and a deadlier police state than we already live in. To say nothing of what’s going to happen to our voting rights in the next 4 years.

  • shiroininja@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 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.

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      0·
      10 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.

    • obre@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 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.

      • shiroininja@lemmy.world
        0·
        10 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.

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 days ago

      I’m surprised they aren’t just burying the news completely.
      Doing this shit is just throwing gasoline on the fire

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    0·
    10 days ago

    Delay, deny, and depose the FBI. The FBI isn’t acting like this during a Trump presidency, this is the most lenient it gets at, during a democratic presidency. With a Trump presidency, Americans should familiarize themselves with current Russian society to know what they should expect for its future. Fuck your messed up police state, Americans, and fuck a constitution that only seems to be propaganda bullshit that is too much for the FBI to live by.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 days ago

      Trump LITERARILY incited a violent mob that killed a cop and the FBI was like “ugh, we’re so weak our hands are tied 😭”

      But some lady venting over our shitty healthcare and there they go like Rambo.

      This is why people don’t trust cops, and this is why people hate the rich.

      • doingthestuff@lemy.lolEnglish
        0·
        10 days ago

        I agree with the end of what you wrote, but I thought the mob didn’t actually kill the police officer? I try to absorb news from diverse sources so I’m used to getting different versions of a story. I wonder which version is more spun?

          • doingthestuff@lemy.lolEnglish
            0·
            10 days ago

            That article isn’t very great, and since it was written just 5 days after the events, it had to be later corrected. It sounds like there were realistically only two deaths that were related to the events of the day. One was maybe crushed trying to push through a police line. One was shot by police. The officer, I already addressed in my edit he died of strokes the following day, ruled natural causes. One was a trump supporter who died of a heart attack, and another was a trump supporter who died of a stroke, but it didn’t sound like either of them were involved in the mob activity. I’d be curious to read a more recent analysis of those five people’s deaths, the wiki today doesn’t read much like that article about the police officer.

            • 4lan@lemmy.world
              0·
              10 days ago

              You’re right within 5 days there weren’t all the deaths. Four officers killed themselves due to the events of January 6th. I guarantee they were Republicans who had their own people attacking them for doing their job.

        • Freefall@lemmy.world
          0·
          10 days ago

          Lol you sound like the VA…oh you were beaten and pepper sprayed in a high-stresd situation…but died of a completely unrelated stroke? Guess it was unrelated. The officers died because of the actions of trump taint-lickers.

  • Erasmus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

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

    “I do find that the bond of $100,000 is appropriate considering the status of our country at this point,” the judge said.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      10 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.

      • gift_of_gab@lemmy.world
        0·
        10 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.

      • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        10 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.)

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          0·
          10 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
            0·
            10 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
              0·
              10 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).

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          10 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
            0·
            10 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?

              • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
                0·
                10 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.comEnglish
              0·
              10 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.

            • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              0·
              10 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.

              • dan@upvote.au
                0·
                10 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.comEnglish
                  0·
                  10 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.

              • Vespair@lemm.ee
                0·
                10 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.

      • Verqix@lemmy.world
        0·
        10 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.zipEnglish
        0·
        9 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?

    • joker125@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 days ago

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

      L O L

      • shadowfax13@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        10 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.