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

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          14 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
            ·
            14 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
              ·
              14 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
                ·
                14 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
            14 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
              ·
              14 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
                ·
                14 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
              ·
              14 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
        14 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!