245

Florida Woman Arrested for Allegedly Saying 'Delay, Deny, Depose' to Her Insurance Company (gizmodo.com)

submitted 5 days ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Your affiant asked Boston if she used the phrase “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next.” during her call earlier today with BlueCross BlueShield to which she acknowledged she said it and apologized. Boston stated she used those words because it’s what is in the news right now. Boston advised she learned of the phrase because of the current events regarding the UnitedHeathcare homicide. Boston stated she did not own any firearms, and she was not a danger to anyone. Boston further stated the healthcare companies played games and deserved karma from the world because they are evil.

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ohellidk@sh.itjust.works 60 points 5 days ago

Don't make threats, just act...

[-] bhamlin@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago

Be the Luigi you wish to see in the world.

[+] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works -22 points 5 days ago

I'm going to assume you mean by voting. Please be careful about what you say, I don't like removing comments.

[-] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 22 points 5 days ago

Voting, yes. And also communicating regularly with our representatives. They can't possible get things right without input from their constituents.

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 days ago

An action I'm in favor of is canceling policies. "Since your company is in such a habit of denying customers the service they have paid for, I'm no longer paying for your service." Get a few million of us to do that and maybe something will get done. Money talks louder than ballots especially when the ballot box is just piped to /dev/null the way it is for so many Americans.

[-] sprittytinkles@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I am new on this instance, came from .world, and it's nice to see a mod give someone a chance rather than just swinging the ban hammer.

[+] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works -9 points 5 days ago

Thanks, but I will temp ban easily if I'm pretty sure they're a troll. Every mod is different too, just like the place that shall not be named. I love this instance though.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

Would discussion of the break down of the efficacy of civil venues for change, leading to this kind of violence, as an outcome of their own actions, be acceptable?

[+] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works -10 points 5 days ago

Talking about what lead to "this kind of violence" and calling for it are 2 very different things. You all are extremely smart, you can figure it out.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

I know from experience some mods don't see the difference. Which is why I asked.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

TBH, it kind of sucks being a mod. I don't have time to mod that often and I rely a lot on reports. I try to give the other mods the benefit of the doubt that they didn't have time to really check in most cases. There are definitely some exceptions to that though. I also have a lot of experience with trolls from the r/ place so it doesn't take much for me to see genuine comments most of the time. Of course, I'm still sometimes wrong and try to apologize if I can.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

Cool, I know being a mod sucks, used to do it when I was younger. Just, have had my comments that corpos, having spent decades, and billions, destroying any civil means of change, will mean they will suffer violence for it, get me banned on an instance.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

World is a weird place. An admin was shadow banning my comments which is why I'm here. They seemed to have stopped that though, so it might have been a rogue admin. I really like this instance and the admins are great.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Heh, It wasn't world, I bailed there when I saw they banned others for telling people to jury nullify luigi's case. It was on an account I mostly use for NSFW content, which was not the account I expected to get a ban for political speech.

[-] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

... after my car was stolen, a few days later, after I'd noticed my car in the lot of used car dealership, and they acted like it was not my car, I flagged down a police car.

Single officer got out, I explained my phone and ids were in the car, and this dealership did not give a fuck, denied everything I said, stonewalled me.

At one point I literally told the cop, with a body cam, that I would burn the dealership to the ground if they sold off my car.

....I did not get arrested for this much more direct threat.

???

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 22 points 5 days ago

I'd wager the "Delay, deny, depose" part had less to do with her arrest than the "You people are next" part.

[-] Dashi@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Yes! I was so confused as to why those words got her in trouble. Then I read what she actually said and thought "ok yeah I can see how that can be construed as a threat"

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

Context matters.

[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 4 points 4 days ago

start making shirts

[-] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

https://www.givesendgo.com/legalfund-ceo-shooting-suspect

[+] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone -11 points 5 days ago

This makes sense. It's unjust, but considering the world we live in and the current events, it was very stupid to make such a statement on record.

[-] TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

1st Ammendment much?

[-] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 days ago

That only really matters for people with money. The rest of us are fucked.

[-] STOMPYI@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Guys guys... he's just a messenger!

[-] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago

This is why I love being on an instance with downvotes disabled. Way better experience.

[-] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

This is MADNESS!!

[-] STOMPYI@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

SPARTATATATTTAATATATTTATATTTATAA

[-] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago

Wouldn't you be more comfortable on .world with the rest of the class traitors?

[-] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Excuse me? Just what do you think "it's unjust" means?

I'm not saying it's right she's arrested, but we live in a state that values the lives of the wealthy over the rights of the proles. Of course she's going to get arrested for parroting threats against the wealthy, they're scared now and the police serve their interests over those of the public.

I'm not a class traitor for noticing that. If you make threats against the state, the state is going to take action against you.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago

A death threat is a death threat.

You don't make death threats on record like she did. You send an anonymous letter with the words made up of cut out letters from magazines and newspapers then pasted on the paper, being careful not to leave any prints or DNA.

[-] Darorad@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Yeah, obviously stupid to do it in a way that could be tied back to you, but this is constitutionally protected speech.

The supreme court ruled in Virginia v Black that only “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” are unlawful, and this doesn't communicate an intent to commit violence, just that someone should.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago

She said "you're next" very obviously referring to the murder of the United Health CEO. If that's not a direct that, I don't know what is.

[-] Darorad@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The supreme court has defined legally actionable threats extremely narrowly. Yeah that's a pretty direct threat, but I don't think it meets the legal standard of a "true threat"

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. The Supreme Court ruled someone saying "If we catch any of you going into these racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck." was protected speech.

That's more direct than her threat.

There's an insanely high standard for convicting someone over a threat.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago

Sure but did someone actually break someone's neck a few days before? I think context is also important.

Btw, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't think this woman should've been arrested. Her threat was obviously empty.

[-] Darorad@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

For the 'true threat' standard, it doesn't matter since she had no connection to the shooting.

Not broken necks, but from the Wikipedia page: "In at least 10 instances, individuals who violated the boycott experienced instances of violence, including shots fired into their homes, bricks thrown through their windshields, and tires on their cars slashed."

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago

Lol, I think the magazine letters would tip them off. When is the last time you read a physical magazine or had access to one?

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago

I was gonna say to print different web pages, but apparently printers have fingerprints that can tie the printed material directly to the unique printer.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago

Settle down, they're allowed to have an opinion.

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 1 points 5 days ago

It’s not about being comfortable. This is a public forum and I for one don’t want the content I consume to be in a thought vacuum.

While I can empathize and even appeal to Boston’s remark, I have no interest in the US devolving a land of vigilantism and “purges.”

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Agreed. Unfortunately, social media trends toward echo chambers, and Lemmy is no exception. Finding a good mix to get a feel for average public opinion is very difficult.

this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024

245 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

355 readers

164 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works