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.
Per the GoFundMe, she was released and charges dropped:
Hi everyone, it looks like the county released Briana with no charges, so I stopped the campaign. See here: https://www.polksheriff.org/inmate-profile/2435323 I am looking how to run a gazillion of reimbursements on this platform.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure they realized they were never going to convict her of anything. Protected speech that also references a wildly popular killing is just not something you’re going to be able to convict over.
First “witch” burned by inquisition of capitalism
I feel this is only the beginning.
First? You’re joking, right?
This time
But bu…overall? No, frank. We burned a few witches.
Remember folks, the company reps you interact with are generally not the ones making the rules they are paid to abide by. They’re working for a living, just like us.
With that, calling this an “act of terrorism” is an incredulous overreaction that just goes to show how badly they’re shitting their pants right now.
We learned about individual responsibilities before, the slaying of poors is not just making a living, it’s not the corporate entity that is the evil it is the henchmen that have individual rights to say stop just like any soldier that is told to rape and plunder innocents
They’re working for a living, just like us.
They’re part of the machine that sucks the blood of the people. I wouldn’t advocate violence, but they’re not worthy of our respect.
I’ve quit jobs because of ethical concerns before, these people don’t make a living just like me.
Imagine having the privilege of not having to compromise your morals because you can get a job just like that in this economy
Imagine not compromising my morals cost me a lot. Time after time. But as someone with a strong consciousness, I know it will cost me more to compromise on my personal values. It’s just that it’s not a monetary cost.
You sound like an economical slave, why do you accept the situation?
You sound like an economical slave, why do you accept the situation?
Because I need food and shelter otherwise I die.
there is shelter and food, plenty to go around- it’s being locked behind an amoral paywall.
do the moral things at your job and get fired over it. make it clear when you apply elsewhere why you were fired.
if we’re being forced to choose between doing the right thing and surviving, the system is broken AND those hoarding obscene amounts, living in luxury, making the decisions to further screw customers and employees in the name of investors and executives need to be addressed, one way or another.
…Im not saying any of this is easy, but the other option seems to be just try to be happy with the scraps they let us fight over? no thank you.
“I was just following orders.”
I took that job and quit a month in for the same reason. I’d rather be in crippling debt than compromise my morals that badly. I couldn’t do it and look at myself in the mirror in the morning.
That’s exactly how they want you to think and be.
Angry at those with even a modicum more. But keep doing at Walmart and Amazon and every other conglomerate.I’d rather be homeless than get paid to kill innocent people.
I am fairly certain insurance claim staff are used to hearing worse.
working for whom ?
They think they’re making an example. That this will have a chilling effect.
They’re wrong. All this is going to do is radicalize even more people. As it should.
“You people are next” does seem pretty threat-ish, however:
After being charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, a judge set Boston’s bond at $100,000.
That is completely out of touch with what happened. “You people are next” not an act of terrorism.
It’s hard for me to agree this is a threat after media has spent years explaining why all of Trump’s language is actually never threatening or inciting violence, even after his language incited violence.
It’s easily argued that the statement was a warning, not a threat.
It is towards the ruling class. They can’t let this grow into something that threatens them.
According to the affidavit, 42-year-old Briana Boston used the phrase during a call with BlueCross BlueShield about a denied claim.
“Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,” she allegedly said near the end of the call.
The “You people are next” line certainly adds some context to this story.
A bit, but it still doesn’t explain how this warrants terrorism charges and $100,000 bail. A visit from the police and probation or anger management courses? OK I still don’t really agree but it makes some sense. But not prison time. She’s getting punished harder than many rapists and child molesters.
MAGA paraded with more direct threats of violence on signs, after Jan 6th, with no accountability.
Why wouldn’t an insinuation of terrorism warrant a terrorism charge and a lot of bail money? That doesn’t make sense.
This occurred in Deregulated Fucking Florida and I thought the damn MAGATs are for freedom of speech.
Only for billionaires or corporations
May the first amendment suit she files after this gain her the money she needs for her healthcare. And may whatever insurance company this is be dissolved.
I’ve heard worse death threats in Fortnite.
I’m not convinced it’s a threat. She didn’t say she was DOING anything, just that nobody is putting up with their shit anymore…
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.
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.
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
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.
Context means everything. It’s obviously a threat.
I’m not a sue happy individual but I would for sure sue in this situation.
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.
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.
Regardless whether you support her general conduct, I think we can all rally around one tenet here:
Don’t harass a shitty company’s T1 support out of priciples against the company in general.They’re in no better position to effect change in the system than you are. They exist only to be slightly more competent phone robots, turning your whiney noise into itemized actions, and filter those actions down to a restricted subset of system commands the company permits them to do.
If anything, they’re on our level of the totem pole. Any outrage directed at them for actions of their broader company are a gross misdirection and wholly counterproductive.
I don’t know who this lady was speaking to on the phone. But if it was some minimum wage phone bank slave who is just the ablative frontline of the customer support hotline, I don’t support her threat in that context.
Maybe if her threat was directed towards the minimum wage worker, they’ll let her go then.
Inb4 nuremburg
This is a dumb take. Their frontline workers should take the brunt of what the public feels. That is the point as you can’t get to anyone higher up. Maybe people won’t want to work there anymore and they will have to pay much higher wages to attract people.
Sounds like a win to me. Company goes under because no one wants to work for them knowing the public hates them or they will get paid enough they don’t care.
In your world we can’t show hate because someone isn’t paid enough and it isn’t their decision. It’s not their fault. But then you can’t access the person who is at fault so there is nothing you can do. This is fundamentally broken concept and is akin to resignation.
Low wage phone workers HAVE been taking the brunt of this shit. It just never mattered to CEOs until now because they never thought theyd be the ones to get the bullet. They probably expected a mass shooting at one if their call centers or something. You know, nothing that hurts them directly.
The worst part is call centers often have policies that say they aren’t allowed to hang up. So they have to sit there and take the abuse. I wonder what the depression and suicide rates are for call center workers…
The point is people are fucking desperate, told to be happy they have a job, and end up in the employment version of an abusive relationship. And like folks in abusive relationships, we should cheer for them to leave while also recognizing it can be quite difficult to do just that.
Charging at them directly where they want you to charge, their designated fall guys, sounds like a superbly inefficient strategy. You are pinching a huge amount of bystanders caught in the middle to for a proportionally negligible effect.
Yes, if someone who is desperately asking for a proverbial (maybe literal?) bullet in their head puts a hostage between you and them, can you still plow right through the hostage and get them that way? Exhaust everyone they can possibly field to eventually break through to them? Sure, in principle. That can balloon to an absurdly high casualty count, though. Is it really all worth it?
It’s a lot more efficient to, wherever possible, sidestep around the hostage, get behind them and strike directly at the problem. That’s exactly what Luigi Mangione did, and its effectiveness is exactly what’s being applauded.
If your rebuttal is that what Luigi did is far more of a risky path to take, you don’t wish to take a risk like that, and you’d rather faff about kicking low level grunts instead because that’s an easier, lower-consequence option for you that theoretically makes progress, okay, I guess. I personally think you’re just wasting your time and energy pissing off only the wrong people. Only big stunts are gonna move the needle, in my opinion.
Killing one CEO has changed nothing, so perhaps both strategies seem fruitless. Of course one involves taking someone’s life and the other just making a logical statement considering the circumstances.
I am intrigued by your big stunts although I am not sure murder is the best way to go about it.
Their frontline workers should take the brunt of what the public feels.
Yes. That is the job. But the fact that they already take the brunt doesn’t justify anyone screaming/abusing/threatening/ect the CSR.
Sounds like a win to me. Company goes under because no one wants to work for them knowing the public hates them or they will get paid enough they don’t care.
A win for whom? What exactly do you get out of it? Satisfaction? Is it just some kind of flaccid moral victory or something?
If this were actually the case, quite a lot of businesses would’ve gone under a long time ago. Most of them still pay shit wages.
In the meantime, real people are negatively affected by the assholery of customers every single day.
This is not a win for the workers. It’s hard enough being forced to spend most of your life working to make just enough money to scrape by, let alone being screamed at, insulted, condescended to, ect.
But then you can’t access the person who is at fault so there is nothing you can do.
except to berate the CSR, apparently. There’s definitely nooo way to voice one’s concerns while speaking like a respectful, emotionally competant human being.
Wait, what does flipping out on them accomplish again?
Good we agree it is their job. This was not really a threat and let’s be honest because of the power difference this lady is facing actual jail time whereas the worker faces nothing.
As I explained, it is a win if CSR don’t want to work for the company unless they are paid more. At this time in history there is a glut of jobs. No one is forcing these people to work for this shit company.
Making an obvious statement out of frustration is not berating. This lady did not even curse the CSR out. I mean you are really just siding with the corporation under the guise of protecting the CSR agent.
Having worked as a CSR for years I can definitely say this was no where near flipping out. Nice try though.
This was not really a threat and let’s be honest because of the power difference this lady is facing actual jail time
I haven’t even made a single comment thus far about what she said, but I absolutely get why she said it. The fact that she’s facing jail time is absurd.
the worker faces nothing.
What we say to others can and often does have an effect on their mental health. Being forced to sit and take abuse and harassment with no recourse isn’t “nothing”. bffr
As I explained, it is a win if CSR don’t want to work for the company unless they are paid more
That’s not how the real world works, though. The majority of us are forced into our jobs because they need money to exist. Even if they wanted to leave, the job market fucking sucks. Not to mention, a lot of the jobs that exist are at other, equally shitty companies. Not much of a choice there.
Making an obvious statement out of frustration is not berating.
Again, I neither said nor implied that it was. I made it pretty clear that I was responding to this specific statement:
Their frontline workers should take the brunt of what the public feels.
The result of getting “the brunt of what the public feels” inherently includes being berated, insulted, ect. I’m sure you’ve experienced as a CSR; as have I. Countless times.
I mean you are really just siding with the corporation under the guise of protecting the CSR agent.
I’d love to hear you elaborate on this claim. It certainly is an interesting one.
My entire point is that I believe (most) people, CSRs in particular, simply deserve to be treated with respect… even when the conversation is about a problem that upsets you. It’s not exactly a complicated argument; nor is it much to ask for.
Now that I think about it, not even one of my points was actually addressed in your response. Nice try, though!
Found a Karen on Lemmy wow
Hey guys, I found the bootlicker!
