Lakeland woman was charged Tuesday after police said she ended a call to an insurance company with the words, “Delay, Deny, Depose.”

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      76
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      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.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

        • Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          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.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 days ago

          “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.

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Too many people support the attractive suspect, find some loud lower class woman to use instead!!!

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          The part where she said, “You’re next.” Still not ceditable and should get tossed out of court.

          • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            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?

            • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              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.

            • Chozo@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              6 days ago

              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.

              • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                6 days ago

                Regarding corporations promoting infighting: I’m defending the person who challenged the corporation. You’re defending the corporation. Jesus Christ dude

                • Chozo@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  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.

  • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

        • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          The first amendment does not mean you can say anything you like, despite what people like to make of it.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            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.

          • Doom@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            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

      • 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

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          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.

          • Taleya@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            You’d only think it was a credible threat if your system was so fucked up the powder keg was lit

            • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              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.

              • Taleya@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                There’s a difference between investigating a possible threat, and attempting to prosecute. I suggest you learn it.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            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.

            • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              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.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                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.

            • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              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.

      • paraphrand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        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!

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

  • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • Doom@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      I don’t think so tbh, at least for me personally. People in power have said way worse things

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • ramsorge@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.