Summary
Briana Boston, 42, was charged with threatening a health insurance company after repeating words linked to the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
During a recorded call with Blue Cross Blue Shield about a denied claim, Boston said, “Delay, deny, depose, you people are next,” echoing phrases engraved on bullet casings at Thompson’s murder scene.
Authorities allege she exploited the CEO’s homicide to make the threat.
Boston, a mother of three with no prior criminal record, was arrested and held on $100,000 bail amidst warnings of potential copycat incidents targeting healthcare executives.
A Health Insurance company denies your medical claims threatening your health and your life = good business
A frustrated house wife who can’t afford health care threatens a billion dollar corporation = jail
Pretty obvious indicator of where our collective priorities are, isn’t it?
Bullshit. Who has the power? Yes. But fuck no, that is not “collective priority”. Until people learn to with together, collective priority is utterly meaningless.
This is the same shit billionaires use to justify their existence.
After seeing how the healthcare companies are reacting to this, unfortunately I don’t think anything will change until there are more killings
I disagree. Most of us do our small part to support the idea that those who have more deserve more, and those who have less deserve less in our everyday social interactions.
Well, then I will point that your “collective priority” merely represents how you or I have been conditioned to behave, but as such, cannot hope to quantify what each of us believe, nor our personal assumptions on how we want the world to work.
We do not want this. A ridiculously small percentage of humanity occupies the uppermost echelons of capitalism. They want this.
The best take I’ve seen on this:
That’s literally hearsay. In this case, they had her recorded. You know, as when you call an automated line and they say they’ll record you?
The judge set her bail at $100,000, citing “the status of our country at this point”.
So the judge is holding this lady personally responsible for the nation’s sentiment towards healthcare companies?
Activist fucking judge
Almost always Conservatives being snowflakes
Stop acknowledging facts or you’ll be next.
She’s next.
Once again, don’t fuck with rich people! They don’t like it when you point out their scam.
don’t [leave evidence when you] fuck with rich people
I’m still not convinced he actually did, that any of those things they found on him weren’t planted, or that he was even the shooter at all
So much of this just does not add up…I don’t know that it’s anything other than what they’ve presented but it’s got enough oddities to throw it all into question, and it has since the first face reveal of someone wearing completely different clothes and backpack from the shooter, and all the very convenient evidence that he supposedly was still carrying around with him and the handwritten “manifesto” that read like someone trying to sound smart rather than someone who’s actually well read and educated
Yeah it definitely doesn’t smell right. Actual assassin or not though, he’s become a symbol.
Absolutely
Funny how fast and hard the state reacts if someone has something against the rich.
And this is supposed to make her less likely to want to kill them? Lol
I’d never take that kind of action against another person for any reason. Now that I’ve got that out of the way, this alone makes me feel that way. I don’t think these rich people or their highly paid judges and politicians realize “setting an example” in the current climate isn’t going to have the effect they think it will.
I don’t think “setting an example” ever did anything. Not even once.
This behavior on the part of the authorities sure as fuck won’t make it less likely that SOMEBODY will want to exterminate the billionaire filth
It doesn’t do anything about their desire; but it’s a bit hard to follow through when you’re in jail. Unless you go full Law Abiding Citizen or something… 🤔
This is kinda proving the lady’s point isn’t it?
exactly!
Suspected killer. Even the BBC is towing the line.
I’d argue that the word are unarguably the killer’s. After all, they were written on the bullet cases that were used to kill the guy.
Whether or not Luigi is the killer is still being decided by the courts. If they had said the words were Luigi’s, there would be an issue. But they didn’t say that; They said “CEO killer” instead, which simply attributes the words to whoever killed the dude.
Those are the killer’s words… whether Mangione is the killer is another story. not that I think this woman should be in jail either; it’s absolutely ridiculous that she is. The reporting is fairly objective though as far as I can tell.
That’s a great point.
Toeing the line? They’re going well beyond that. Have you read the BBC’s finger-wagging admonishment of the poors / puff piece for United Health?
Disgusting, I can’t stand humanizing serial killers. UK doesn’t even HAVE a for-profit healthcare system (yet), but they still stand in solidarity with the haves against the have-nots
They have monarch, tho.
Not by choice, we don’t.
If it was by choice, then they wouldn’t be a monarch. :D
deleted by creator
Even the BBC is
towingtoeing the line.Holy crap i didn’t even notice. I feel like swipe typing is getting worse or maybe I’m just getting worse at it then again e and w are right next to each other
It’s definitely getting worse. SwiftKey used to be great at
precociouspredictingword’swords.YepToo manyexaltedexamples here. I’m leaving them all in.
eggcorn
?
‘Eggcorn’ is a linguistics term for a new word or phrase that is slightly different to an older one- substituting words that sound smilar- yet still makes sense and has a similar meaning to the older term, for example:
- eggcorn, (acorn)
- mute point (moot),
- free rein (reign - I think reign is older version?),
- towing the line (toe)
Sometimes the eggcorns make more sense to modern speakers than the older term and it may eventually usurp them entirely. I don’t think many peple know what a ‘moot’ is anymore. If ‘mute’ makes more sense to more people it’s likely to grow in popularity.
I don’t know why linguists chose ‘eggcorn’ as the eponym; I’m sure I’ve never actually heard anyone say “eggcorn” to mean “acorn” - apart from me since I learnt about this phenomenon.
Well they’ve been trying to privitize the NHC…
Who did she threaten? A spefic person? A group? What makes the judge think this was a credible threat?
Just another way to squash any kind of continuance of an idea, whoch is very dystopian.
They get to make up rules whenever rich people are worried.
I’ve been threatened multiple times in my life. They never explicitly tell me they’ll injure me, they use language like “or else”.
That’s a threat. We all know that’s a threat. Let’s not pretend otherwise. People making threats these days think they’re being clever by being indirect.
Trust me, you don’t want to be in a country where stuff like this is normalised, especially by right wingers
Because of the implication.
Or else
My first call center job, my first year, someone threatened to kill me. 23 years ago, I still remember it. I answered the call, didn’t even get the first word of my greeting out, and this woman was screaming, “don’t hang up on me, you better not hang up on me, the last three people hung up on me, if you hang up on me I will come through the phone and KILL YOU!”
I hung up on her.
In my case it was my ex housemates boyfriend, and then a rich customers kid onsite who threatened me (we were fixing another installers f up and we somehow got blamed)
Did she kill you?
It’s funny, because I didn’t consciously intend to hang up on her, it was very much a reflexive action. But moments later I realized I had missed the perfect opportunity to say “I’d like to see you try”
You’re missing my point I think. Not saying she didn’t make a threat. But WHO specifically did she threaten? Was it a specific person? Was it a group?
Group / company…
It doesn’t need to be a specific person.
Hmm the company is violating her human rights and endangering her life, they are the ones who should be in front of the judge
And own state law, article 365.161(d)…
Making threats just tells them what the plans are. Move in silence, and do what needs to be done. You wouldn’t tell (or imply to) a cop that you’re planning on robbing a store, because they would expect it and act accordingly.
STFU Fridays!
It’s better to learn anyways.
Let’s all learn about jury nullification!
https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf
CGPGrey: The Law You Won’t Be Told if you’re more of a watch-funny-YouTube guy than a read-50-page-PDF guy.
Are you talking about jury nullification in the context of a crime that has not yet been committed and that crime might be a violent crime? Sounds like you are violating the newest .world ToS update.
Have an upvote.
I’m just talking about jury nullification.
Haha, thought it was at least a little relevant.
That’s why I feel comfortable threatening corporations online.
I have zero plans of doing anything, I’m just here to cheer it on.
If anyone out there has true plans to do something, shut the fuck up. Tell no one. Be like Luigi.
Test your printed silencer before so you know what powder load will cycle properly
Have a secluded hide-out prepared with everything you need for a month.
Doesn’t sound like a threat. Sounds like a sincere warning.
Without knowing more, it is the “you people are next” that makes this a threat in particular. You should easily be able to say deny defend or depose or whatever, just don’t use threats
Hence why we have an actual standard for this…
A random housewife giving a vague threat at the end of an already heated call by referencing a recent event involving the company, really doesn’t come close to the definition.
this isn’t a first amendment issue.
It’s illegal to shout “BOMB!” in an airport even if there is no bomb, and you have no intention of setting one off. further, it’s also illegal to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.
It’s also pretty much illegal everywhere to call in bomb threats or similar, even merely as a prank.
this isn’t a first amendment issue.
It very much is.
It’s also pretty much illegal everywhere to call in bomb threats or similar, even merely as a prank.
Hence why there is a legal distinction for true threats like that… which you chose to completely ignore for whatever reason (probably because it negates your entire comment).
It’s not any different than telling someone that you wish they’d die. That’s not a threat. No one in their right mind would think she, herself, was making a direct threat against anyone at the company based on the context of the conversation. Only dumbfuck keyboard warriors on the internet trying to look smart but too lazy to click any links because it might conflict with their idea of reality.
How to tell no one has ever threatened you.
Glad you live a safe law protected by laws.
I’ve worked contract security and have had people threaten me over being told they can’t park in a handicap space to pick up their spouse.
I’ve had those same people then try and follow me home, then tell the cops we happened to be going the same way. (Despite it being hours later.)
You cannot tell who will and who won’t.
A threat was communicated and a threat was meant to be communicated. That’s enough to satisfy the first amendment’s need for subjective “intention.”
Which is why this isn’t a first amendment issue. Boston meant what she said, and we know that; because she doubled down on it with the cops.
It isn’t the intention to carry out the threat, it’s the intention to make the threat.
How to tell no one has ever threatened you.
I’ve worked front line call center just like this situation. I’ve had a shit ton of threats. None of them were ever going to do shit, most of them were much worse than what she said.
If her statement is the bar, then at least 3/4 of calls into any customer service number would result in an arrest. If we’re going to apply the law equally, then we need to apply it equally and arrest 3/4 of the population.
In person threats are a completely different situation than an escalated customer service call.
This is a common misconception. It’s not illegal to say anything like “bomb” or “fire” in a public place, at all.
What you could get charged with in those situations is something like, “inciting a riot”, or “disorderly conduct”. These depend on how people around you react to your words or actions, but doesn’t depend on the actual words used.
So you’re saying it’s illegal? Yup. You are!
Also note, there’s the argument that the threat itself was disorderly etc, and the reason these laws stand is because; generally, people have a right to not be living under the fear such threats cause.
Trust me, if these kinds of statements were protected speech, we’d live in a much, much worse place.
But they’re not.
She intended to communicate a threat of violence. It doesn’t matter if she could carry it out, on reasonable person can know that- in the context of that phone call. Or even in the context of the conversation with the cops later.
Its not illegal, though. I can go out into public right now and say it with no repercussions. If it was illegal, how would anyone possibly inform other people of actual fires and bombs?
The thing that is illegal is causing a panic in a large group of people. Has nothing to do with the words used.
I just feel that the nuance is important. Any combination of words could get you in trouble if it happens to cause a riot.
It’s a threat. They just have no reason to belive she, in particular, should be believed. It’s not a true threat, by legal standards. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m very confident of this. This is an obvious miscarriage of justice. Throwing a threat out in anger or frustration does not make a true threat.
Also she never said she would be the one to do it just that they would be next.
Right, because anger and frustration aren’t predictors of murderous behavior at all.
They are explicitly given as reasons other cases have been deemed not true threats, yeah. People are likely to throw threats out meaninglessly when angry. It’s not a good predictor of if they’ll actually follow through. There are other factors that are, like the victims history with the person and the persons past behavior. Just a threat in anger is not a true threat, based on existing legal precedence.
Pointing out that someone’s behaviour matches that which caused something bad to happen to someone else when you are not the one who did that bad thing to someone else is not a fucking threat
Or you know, the person stops being a pussy and answers “yeah yeah sure lady”.
99% of the threats aren’t real. And if you are not scared of a threat because you know it’s BS, you have not really been threatened now have you?
Not to mention, how many threats do those workers get in the average day? I’m betting it’s a number north of zero, and a lot more clearly threatening, and just as recorded.
I have no idea the stats on this but from everyone I’ve known who’s worked call centers for things way less critical than whether the caller gets live saving care or not, I would be shocked if they don’t get daily threats, and I’m betting none of them are taken seriously or charged.
What’s the difference? Who the threat is directed at. The rest are directed at the poor reps who are probably just trying to survive in a soul crushing job, while this references killing someone actually “important”: the people in charge
After you reference a killing, and then say “you are next”, that’s a threat.
The blatant implication is that the person they’re talking to is the next to get killed.
It really is quite clear.
It might be an empty threat, but the blue cross person can’t know that.
You’re saying it’s simple. It’s really not as simple as you think. The legal requirement is a true threat. (Google it) Just threatening someone in anger or frustration has been ruled to not be a true threat. They need a reason to believe you’ll follow through. This clearly is not that. It’s bullshit. It is purely done as an act of terrorism by the state. They want people to fear even mentioning the killer’s message.
They need a reason to believe you’ll follow through. This clearly is not that. It’s bullshit.
you don’t think they have a reason? I do. and they clearly did, or they’d never have reported it to cops.
Remember, we’re talking about a phone rep for a fucking hated health insurance company. They’re used to dealing with angry people. they deal with them every other phone call.
Like you said, they deal with angry customers all the time. Why would they suspect this person is any different? It’s just about sending a message. They want us to be scared to ever bring it up, so they need to make an example out of some people.
or. just hear me out here. the lady really was scared because there’s something there.
Even if it doesn’t rise to the level of being criminality, it’s still a threat, and that employee felt threatened enough to report it. do you really think anyone is actually scared to talk about it? I’m not. you’re not. Nobody else here isn’t either.
It’s a threat, yeah. True threat is what’s required by the law. You can’t just arrest everyone who makes a threat and hold them on $100,000 bail. That’d be insane.
do you really think anyone is actually scared to talk about it?
Yes. The judge just about admitted that was the purpose of setting the bail so high. You don’t get a bail set at $100,000 for a non-violent offender with family and no flight risk generally. It’s purely intimidation. They don’t want people to threaten the ultra-wealthy’s money, but the state is encouraged to threaten the people to make them stop.
After you reference a killing, and then say “you are next”, that’s a threat.
Nope, even you say so:
The blatant implication is that the person they’re talking to is the next to get killed.
Notice how its not that the person speaking will do it even in your own rewording? That’s how it’s not a threat
They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.
It doesn’t matter if she’s the one doing the killing, doesn’t matter if it was “serious”, they used the threat of violence.
It’s really that simple. You’re arguing a technicality that does not exist. Any reasonable person being on the other end of that line would have interpreted it as a threat. Period. Full stop.
Maybe the lady shouldn’t have been denied. That’s probably true. She still made a threat; and she did so on a line that we all know is being recorded.
I don’t know that it needs more than a “don’t do that”, but saying it wasn’t a threat is factually and legally incorrect.
It doesn’t matter if she’s the one doing the killing, doesn’t matter if it was “serious”, they used the threat of violence.
It literally does matter legally, which is what’s being discussed surrounding her arrest, by law enforcement, and her bail being set by a Justice in a court of law.
Please, before continuing further, do some reading on “true threat,” which is the legal requirement.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/true-threats
Before you continue to bitch about “true threat”…
you should probably go back and read the article again. This isn’t a 1A issue. She was not somehow prevented from her speech (that is the threat,) and was quite successful in delivering that speech.
Boston is being charged under Florida law. specifically statute 836.10.2b which makes it illegal to:
(2) It is unlawful for any person to send, post, or transmit, or procure the sending, posting, or transmission of, a writing or other record, including an electronic record, in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person, when in such writing or record the person makes a threat to:
(a) Kill or to do bodily harm to another person; or
(b) Conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism.Again, her first amendment rights were never violated.
another statute that may be of significance here is 836.5, which makes it illegal to issue a threat for the purpose of extorting money (or other gains).
Edit to add: the threat doesn’t need to be serious, and not having a firearm doesn’t make it okay to threaten people. Is it dubious she had the physical ability to conduct the threat? absolutely. Was it stated in a moment of frustration and anger? certainly. Do I completely understand and sympathize with that anger? fucking absolutely.
however. She still issued a threat. which, if you don’t want cops showing up at your door, don’t issue a threat to someone whose just doing their job- even if their job is to railroad you and deny medical care; on a recorded phone call. and then don’t admit to it to the cops, and then continue saying shit like “they’re evil” and “They deserve karma”
of fucking course she got arrested.
To any one reading this, here’s the best free legal advice anyone can give you: SHUT THE FUCK UP. When the cops knock on your door. they are INVESTIGATING YOU. shut the fuck up and get a lawyer. Don’t admit to anything. don’t continue blathering on about how “they deserve it”. That’s how you get arrested. Boston literally did their work for them.
edit 2: you might want to look at the MTSU article you dropped. It states it rather plainly:
True threats constitute a category of speech — like obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and the advocacy of imminent lawless action — that is not protected by the First Amendment and can be prosecuted under state and federal criminal laws. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat, but the prosecution must prove that he or she intended to communicate a threat. Cases that have reached the Supreme Court in recent years have involved threats made over social media.
(emphasis mine)
They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.
That’s called a warning, threats only can come from people who intend to act
“You’re going to be next if you keep acting like this” is t a threat. “I’m going to make you the next one” is
Its really that simple
there’s a big distinction between the two, in that warnings generally involve actions that are legal (like defending yourself, or cops arresting people, etc), vs threats that are actions which illegal (“give me your wallet or I"ll kill you”.)
Also, generally speaking, warnings frequently include things that are natural or legal consequences for your actions. “If you continue to harass X, you’ll be arrested”, is a warning, “if you don’t put down the gun, I will shoot” is a warning. “If you swim during a riptide, you’ll be pulled out to sea” is a warning. “Approve my claim or i’ll kill you” is not a warning. it’s a threat.
“Approve my claim or i’ll kill you” is not a warning. it’s a threat.
Yep that would be a threat. That’s not what she said though. She never said she’d do anything. She was just pointing out that someone was recently killed for the behavior they’re exhibiting, so if they’re going to keep doing that behavior, it stands to reason the same thing will happen to them.
They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.
Not really.
The call center rep likely gets daily death threats working that hellish job, ones far more direct. Ones that didn’t get the person arrested.
She implied someone at the top was going to be targeted. You know, someone the company actually cares about.
deleted by creator
I understood it as “blue cross is next”
She did not say “I am going to kill you” She did not say “I’m going to execute your CEO”
She was warning them that if they continue their actions someone will do something.
What she said is fully protected by the first amendment. Anyone trying to say that it is a threat is licking on a boot like they found an ice cream bar on a deserted island.
The context you’re hearing it is vastly different. You’re removed from the comments, and weren’t-probably- already getting botched out by an angry Boston.
She said it to a specific person. In the context of a phone call with a specific person, “you people” included the person on the other end of the line.
Btw, I’ve been involved in dozens of similar cases here. Where people have made threats similar against my employees.
These laws are commonly enforced. And you’ll notice they’re not being overturned any time soon. You can say that all you want, but the first amendment doesn’t let you scare people into doing what you want by making threats of violence against them.
That’s not protected speech.
She’d have to be much more specific. It’s completely ambiguous.
and then when the cops came, she admitted to it, and continued on saying stuff like “they’re evil” and “They deserve karma”
like. Okay. The insurance peeps are fucking evil. she’s not wrong.
but maybe don’t tell the cops that? maybe shut the fuck up and get a lawyer.
Every day is shut the fuck up Friday
Hit lawyer, gym up
I have to agree with you, mostly.
The system gets to make the rules and even if she didn’t say, “you people are next” I think they’d still be doing this. Corpos control our justice system and they will not tolerate us glorifying Luigi Mangione (please jurors look up "nullification”)
That was my thought as well. If she left it at DDD, that’s just showing opposition. “You people are next” is a pretty clear threat.
Fuck the insurance companies, but be smart about how.
Sounded more like a prediction to me
Gotta tap down those unruly peons before the rest get uppity.
Rules for thee but not for me rule.
