1036
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 188 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 275 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] ArtieShaw@fedia.io 62 points 4 months ago

Ouch. "This place is a shit show," the judge said. (Not really, just fixed it for him).

[-] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 82 points 4 months ago

Yet, if Trump said it live in front of cameras, it would be "a joke."

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] Kalysta@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 115 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] tamal3@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] tamal3@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

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

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 49 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 20 points 4 months ago

"a bit hostile" -> straight to jail

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 3 points 4 months ago

Ohh good point. Have a call center friend; heard stories...

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Clearly she was saying that they were next to receive a gift basket for all their hard work in denying claims for profit

[-] robocall@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I can agree with your statement, but is it an act of terrorism? I don't think her threat should be categorized as terrorism.

[-] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 4 points 4 months ago

I don't think it's terrorism either as I understand. Terrorism targets citizens for leverage.

this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
1036 points (100.0% liked)

News

28764 readers
4111 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS