See, telling your supposed enemy your intentions was the first mistake. If you didn’t intend to go through with it, then it was just an empty threat. Either way it’s dumb.
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.
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.
Agreed. It’s straight up murder
Maybe if you get another vote?
As in, if trump doesn’t turn the country into a dictatorship, hopefully we have a future candidate that will treat health care as a human right? 🤞
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.
What was wrong?
Dysautonomia causing SVT and sinus arrest. I have a loop monitor now and am on heart meds.
e: they wanted to send me home with ‘anxiety’.
What did you threaten them with? Thats the most important part.
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.
Once you threaten violence, its a ticket straight to jail. Not very effective
Yeah, threatening violence is useless currently. Either act on it or have a plan B.
Well I wouldn’t say that. But threats of violence are best done anonymously
Ok yeah fair enough
So, no free speech in the US after all?
Depends on how much money you have.
Paid speech
Elon Musk could tweet about this (he won’t, though, because he’s a shit-eating ass nozzle) and nothing would happen.
Nothing. Not a thing. They can do anything they want, but the poors get shit on and jailed.
🌎👩🏼🚀🔫👩🏼🚀
Never has been.
And also shouldn’t be
You can free speech on X and truthsocial about shooting Mexicans. But you can’t free speech on other platforms about shooting CEOs.
Because “free speech” can only align with the platform you are on. If it doesn’t align, then it is some other form of speech which is not allowed. Very simple.
The lower classes must be kept in check otherwise they might realize how easy it would be for this to happen again. So let’s give a person a 100k bond, charge them with an act of terrorism for saying words fhat are literally used to describe the techniques of insurance companies
Free speech doesn’t conver threats.
So, Trump will be arrested as well?
He should be, yes.
deleted by creator
Interesting to note, they mentioned the Florida woman’s name, but not the judge’s.
Interesting, interesting, interesting.
I take it that was the the information they could get.
Well Lakeland is Polk county, known by people who grew up in FL as the meth capital of Florida. All arrest records are public record in Florida, so finding a judge wouldn’t be hard I imagine. First appearance court rooms should be the link below. Not sure which judge it would have been on Wednesday.
I said Wednesday because if she was arrested Tuesday Florida does first appearances the next morning (unless it’s a weekend) https://www.jud10.flcourts.org/virtual-courtroom-links/polk-first-appearance
“The working class is being oppressed to the point of breaking, so we better just keep them all locked up.”
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
“Status of our country.” Lol. A fucking gilded age shithole where the rich a finally being treated like the outta be?
Fucking florida. It’s like they all live there to prove a just god does not exist as they haven’t been washed away yet despite it being fucking florida.
No, but in 10 to 20 years nature will be doing the Lord’s work.
The beatings will continue until moral improves.
She threatened the ruling class. And in a feudal society are not allowed to do that.
Honestly the judge can be added to the fucking list.
Evil. They’re evil.
Let’s not make him a liar
The “status of our country” is genocidal empire of massive inequality destroying the planet.
How much do judges make? The average income is around 30k a year in us, and thats just the income not even saving.
No one making 30k is going to have savings
I don’t get how people live on 30k. They have to be a multi income residence. Even in the cheap areas, that is so little in this country.
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.
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.
Ouch. “This place is a shit show,” the judge said. (Not really, just fixed it for him).
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.
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.
Not saying you are wrong about the marginalized, but in this case she made, 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.
Yet, if Trump said it live in front of cameras, it would be “a joke.”
In Trump’s case it would be on 5th avenue in broad daylight.
Just a joke though.
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.
The bond is ridiculous, but the arrest wasn’t.
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.
Oops, I completely misinterpreted your comment. Not sure what etiquette says, but I feel silly and am removing mine.
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.
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.
Edit: on some reflection that might be a rude reply if you don’t already know that domestic violence threats in the US are largely ignored.
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
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
For something really embarrassing -
Original embarrassing comment:
I hate Star Trek
Newly edited comment:
edit: removed opinion I reconsidered
Were their threats recorded? The fact that people have said worse doesn’t change the fact that it was a threat.
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.
Seems like free speech to me?
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.
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.
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.
E: Apparently some ignorant idealists don’t like making a distinction. Tough shit. From a legal standpoint, that’s how it works.
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.
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.
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.
Hot take here in Lemmy. Get it while it’s still hot!
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.
Even more importantly, it matters who you’re threatening. Your wife? Meh, no biggie. An insurance company? Straight to jail.
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.
Ohh good point. Have a call center friend; heard stories…
“a bit hostile” -> straight to jail
Do not threaten commerce, they don’t tolerate that. The money must flow at all costs.
Clearly she was saying that they were next to receive a gift basket for all their hard work in denying claims for profit
I can agree with your statement, but is it an act of terrorism? I don’t think her threat should be categorized as terrorism.
I don’t think it’s terrorism either as I understand. Terrorism targets citizens for leverage.
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.
Judges too! He set her bail at 100K. Rapists get less than that.
The whole fucking system is as crooked as a $3 bill
I’ve had a loved one threatened by a drunk/high driver before. They (the asshole) nearly ran them off the road after swerving into the oncoming traffic lane, and my relative literally was doing nothing but drive the speed limit.
We had the full license plate number, and we met with the police after calling it in. The police then said they couldn’t do a thing. They didn’t even put out a call to get this guy off the road. They seemed legitimately bothered that we even reported the crime.
She said “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,” according to the article.
Funny part is insurance companies hear worse than this all day long however this is their trigger.
L O L
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.
I hope she’s right
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
You can literally choose to not say anything about threatening or murdering someone over a recorded call.
They consent by continuing the call. They can otherwise hang up
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.
Oh honey… they were going continue denying the claim either way.
Legally, the fact that you didn’t hang up the phone after that disclaimer means you consented.
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.
It depends on the state. Not all states have two-party consent.
Because police exist to protect capital, not people.
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.
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.
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).
Remember the time Lemmy was so outraged at the elections that they, un ironically, became Unabomber stans
Outraged at elections or outraged that despite decades of the football being tossed around each election, that nothing changes, and the only way to make change is via violence at this point?
I wish.
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.
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?
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.
Proof that the justice system only serves the wealthy.
Clown world we living in
One dead cop, no more donut shop. More dead cops, the hurting stops
They are afraid.
Good.
Let’s make them more… concerned.
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
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.
From the article’s source article:
“She’s been in this world long enough that she certainly should know better that you can’t make threats like that in the current environment that we live in and think that we’re not going to follow up and put you in jail,” said Lakeland Police Chief Sam Taylor.
I thought we had a legal definition of a real threat, and this isn’t it.
This man on the other hand was released after his EIGHTH stalking arrest in three years.
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/plano-man-8th-arrest-stalking-harassing-smu-students/
But someone who is stalking their ex and threatens to kill them the cops won’t do anything about.
Well is the ex a CEO?
Yeah, well, what’s she going to do? Hire an expensive lawyer? If she’s that upset by being denied, she’s likely too poor to play the U.S. justice game.
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.
Thank goodness for that freedom of speech we have …
Just dont say what I dont wanna hear
It’s because she said they’re next, and it was recorded. Threats aren’t protected speech.
The state threatens people all the time.
Well, she actually said “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,”
That’s a pretty direct threat. The headline is misleading.
That’s worth 100k bond? Really? That’s more than voluntary manslaughter.
They’re afraid of the common man now
They are supposed to be…
I know
I don’t think so, no. Context is everything though. Before the assassination, just free speech, after, a threat of significant violence.
Also, free Luigi!
I suppose so, but the thought process of just jailing any verbal dissent… how long can, a healthcare system of all things, run on fear?
Well, it’s not just any dissent, it a threat of violence. If she didn’t say, “you’re next” I’d be agreeing with most of the people in this thread.
Whoever posted this left that part out of the post. I wonder why.
Pointing out that what someone is doing puts a target on their back isn’t necessarily you threatening them.
Where is the actual threat? You people are next, to get delayed, denied, or deposed.
For responding with the catchphrase insurance companies themselves created and live by. This isn’t the suspect’s catchphrase, but apparently even uttering these words back at health insurance companies is too much for them.
Well, “depose” isn’t pat of it. The killer added that part.
Well, depose isn’t actually a type of pat, so I don’t know what you are on about.
You said:
the catchphrase insurance companies themselves created and live by.
And I just said she added the part that the killer added too - depose.
Actually, you didn’t, if we are being pandantic about it. 🙃
Okay, that’s what I was trying to convey.
“you people are next,” also isn’t part of it.
You mean basically the same sort of vague threat Trump has thrown around for decades that no one does anything about when it isn’t directed at the rich, just at society in general?
This discussion has nothing to do with Trump. But, Trump should absolutely be in prison for his threats.
Ah, sorry, didn’t realize all we had to do to solve the world’s problem was switch over to idealistic make believe land.
The status of our country? What does that mean exactly?
The plebians are uppity
Correct, but the best way to deal with a moron talking in dog whistles is to ask what they mean by that and play dumb till they say the quiet part aloud.
Sure, but the judge isn’t in this thread, so…
Attorneys have said the insurance industry uses a “delay, deny, defend” tactic to withhold health care services.
Jailed for using words to describe what insurance companies do?
Judge is trying to fill their year-end quota.
“Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,” she allegedly said near the end of the call.
Let’s be real, the “You people are next” is probably the reason for jail.
“You people are next…”
“… to hear from my lawyer!”
“… to get bad press once I go to the newspaper.”
“… <insert anything that doesn’t mean physical violence.>”
I hope we don’t jail people based on what we think they meant.
police jail people for even less than that, they will lie and frame innocent people to put them in jail
She repeated the phrase written on the bullet casings used in the killing of an insurance CEO and then said “you people are next” on a phone call with her insurance - it’s clearly a threat given the context of the phrase and the killing. Denying that context is one of the less defensible positions here. What is more defensible is that her threat is clearly empty and the law has stricter requirements about what constitutes a crime.
She repeated the phrase written on the bullet casings used in the killing of an insurance CEO and then said “you people are next” on a phone call with her insurance - it’s clearly a threat given the context of the phrase and the killing.
Here’s the thing, at least this is how I view it:
Is it reasonable to believe she can actually carry out this threat? If not, then jail is waaaaay overkill. Shit, we have violent offenders and drunk drivers around here who don’t see the inside of a cell at all.
This woman, denied insurance for either a health matter that her or a loved one is going through. She’s a middle-aged woman who doesn’t own a firearm, and is likely very frustrated for being put in a health (or financial) crisis by the denial of her insurance provider.
Did she say “you people are next” in reference to the putting down of another insurance company CEO? Of course. Do people say things like that all the time out of frustration with no way they could realistically or literally carry out the threat? ALL THE TIME.
This is an example of the justice system taking the side of a business, and not a person. It’s shameful, and this judge likely hasn’t considered the harm caused by insurance companies - actual harm, that actually kills real life people!
Anyway, I don’t agree that she should have been arrested and jailed. I can empathize with her frustration, because I have sick American friends who always get shit on by their insurance company, delaying treatment or arguing against their doctor’s recommendations.
Did she say “you people are next” in reference to the putting down of another insurance company CEO? Of course.
Right, so not what you said originally, which is that she meant something else and the sheriff who ordered her arrest was just jumping to conclusions, a conclusion you now agree with.
Anyway, I agree with you that it is an injustice that she was jailed, and I think we are all empathizing with her right now. We would all like the police to take more seriously dangerous stalkers and protecting people, and not serving as the militant arm of the 1%. Unfortunately, the police are an institution that historically have been put in place by the 1% to protect their interests, and there is a long-standing legal ruling that the police are not there to “protect and serve” (the common citizen).
Right, so not what you said originally, which is that she meant something else and the sheriff who ordered her arrest was just jumping to conclusions, a conclusion you now agree with.
That could still be true, though. That’s the thing… you can’t make assumptions about other people’s intentions, even if the context seems to point one way in hindsight.
From the article: “She reportedly said she used the phrase “because it’s what is in the news right now.””
She may not have even known the full extent of the context, like someone repeating a meme without knowing the origin story.
The officers interpreted what she said as an actual threat of violence, which is completely outrageous.
After being charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, a judge set Boston’s bond at $100,000.
The judge made a HUGE FUCKING LEAP here! She had neither the means nor the intent to “conduct a mass shooting”, any more than if she claimed she would “nuke” their building.
This judge is either being paid by the insurance company, or is acting in poor faith.
Unfortunately, the police are an institution that historically have been put in place by the 1% to protect their interests, and there is a long-standing legal ruling that the police are not there to “protect and serve” (the common citizen).
I couldn’t agree more, especially as it’s applied to this story.
Let’s say an elected official or candidate (bless em if any would actually do this) says this phrase in a speech. Would they be arrested? Or would they be given an interview for them to explain themselves, where they deftly state “obviously I’m not talking about doing it myself - but generally speaking these companies are heading in a concerning direction”. There would be debates over it, some people would be upset, but the story would fade and the politician would likely move on as well.
Say that phrase with Trump’s voice in your head and it sounds like much of his political speech.
Regular folks must be a lot more careful with their speech in the US, far less of it is free.
Now your understand how freedom of speech in america works o7
yes, of course
Sure that’s the reason but is it a justification?
Do you know how many people are saying shit like this everyday all day?
This is the police protecting corporate America over the working class.
I guarantee they are taking orders from the oligarchs. Squash any talks of more execution
Agreed, and I never said otherwise.
No, her lack of money is the reason for jail.
that’s true for everyone in jail :-) but it’s also not the most proximate cause, it’s more like a background requirement, a necessary but not sufficient condition
Context means everything. It’s obviously a threat.
I’m not a sue happy individual but I would for sure sue in this situation.
Looks like a lot of us are going to jail over the next 4 years.
Well yeah, those camps won’t fill themselves!
They can’t jail all of us. Deny, defend, depose
That won’t stop them from trying. After all, the prisons are profit centers for them.
Nothing like jail time to radicalized someone more. Judge is playing 5d cheese by providing motivation.
Judge is playing 5d cheese…
Man, cheese with 2 extra dimensions has to be really delicious.
I’m guessing one of the dimensions is time, so we’re talking about an aged cheese. The fifth dimension, I’ve no idea what it could be
You couldn’t handle it!
It’s very similar to how it feels to chew 5 gum
Mind blowing really
Getting her in touch with the people that can get the job done.
Freedom of speech, as long as it’s completely meaningless.
Let’s free her
She’s been released with no charges. Fucker’s didn’t have a case.
Her saying, “you people are next,” is what makes it a threat, thus not protected under free speech.
That’s not a threat. Thays a awning. She never said she would do anything specific. This is a slam dunk defense case.
You don’t have to say you’re going to do something specific for it to be a threat.
She should of said, " The second amendment people will take care of you". Now that is presidential.
What a fucking farce that our POTUS makes threats all the time but a citizen can’t even speak their mind.
