Lakeland woman was charged Tuesday after police said she ended a call to an insurance company with the words, “Delay, Deny, Depose.”
Lakeland woman was charged Tuesday after police said she ended a call to an insurance company with the words, “Delay, Deny, Depose.”
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
“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
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.
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.
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:
So yeah… she’s gonna need a really good lawyer.
Still not a threat.
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.
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.