• theonetruedroid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    It seems pretty obvious what she was implying, but that’s what a trial is for. She may not have meant it, but it is clearly a threat of violence.

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          I worked in a call center for several years and received no shortage of bizarre threats. Never once did I feel that any of the threats were worth being concerned about. Granted these would be threats over lack of warranty coverage on usually budget model phones so very different from health insurance where the dollar values and stakes are many orders of magnitude higher

        • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I might.
          That doesn’t necessarily prove it was meant this way and because we’re talking potential criminal offense it has to be proven it was meant as a threat if I’m not mistaken.

          • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yes, that’s proven in the courts, not by the cops.

            She said something that could easily be taken for a terroristic threat, given the context. It would be a bad thing to not take terroristic threats seriously. Whether she was being serious or not is irrelevant regarding her arrest.