Woman jailed after using shooting suspect's catchphrase as insurance company denied claim.
https://www.rawstory.com/luigi-mangione-2670445030/Open linkView original on lemmy.world1067
Comments297https://www.rawstory.com/luigi-mangione-2670445030/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
Threatening the hospital that was denying my father care, leaving him to die, was the only way I got into the literal board room to reason with them. I got them to resume treatment after they dicked around for a month and he refused to leave because he was going to die if he left.
He still died because he was so sick at that point that they couldn’t do the procedure he needed when he first arrived.
So I threatened them in 2010, and I’d fucking do it again now for my child. We are supposed to stand up for our loved ones.
It's disgusting. There needs to be legal recognition of all that is at stake for patients and their families. The denial of necessary care is structural violence and should be treated as such by everyone.
Agreed. It’s straight up murder
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder
Maybe if you get another vote?
As in, if trump doesn't turn the country into a dictatorship, hopefully we have a future candidate that will treat health care as a human right? 🤞
I had to play this card once, too. I was in the cardiac unit for 28 days, and they were going to send me home because they couldn’t figure out what was wrong, and the insurance decided I wasn’t worth the expense anymore.
I refused to leave until they gave me a diagnosis, because i would have just died otherwise.
Pretty sure the healthcare system still wants that.
What was wrong?
Dysautonomia causing SVT and sinus arrest. I have a loop monitor now and am on heart meds.
e: they wanted to send me home with ‘anxiety’.
What did you threaten them with? Thats the most important part.
Financial extermination. But threat of violence would’ve been my next step in trial and error. It’s my family.. I’d do anything for them. People even told me I should’ve. It was a tough situation and I was young. A little younger than Luigi.
Once you threaten violence, its a ticket straight to jail. Not very effective
Yeah, threatening violence is useless currently. Either act on it or have a plan B.
Well I wouldn't say that. But threats of violence are best done anonymously
Ok yeah fair enough
So, no free speech in the US after all?
Depends on how much money you have.
Paid speech
Elon Musk could tweet about this (he won't, though, because he's a shit-eating ass nozzle) and nothing would happen.
Nothing. Not a thing. They can do anything they want, but the poors get shit on and jailed.
🌎👩🏼🚀🔫👩🏼🚀
Never has been.
And also shouldn't be
You can free speech on X and truthsocial about shooting Mexicans. But you can’t free speech on other platforms about shooting CEOs.
Because “free speech” can only align with the platform you are on. If it doesn’t align, then it is some other form of speech which is not allowed. Very simple.
The lower classes must be kept in check otherwise they might realize how easy it would be for this to happen again. So let’s give a person a 100k bond, charge them with an act of terrorism for saying words fhat are literally used to describe the techniques of insurance companies
Free speech doesn't conver threats.
So, Trump will be arrested as well?
He should be, yes.
Interesting to note, they mentioned the Florida woman's name, but not the judge's.
Interesting, interesting, interesting.
I take it that was the the information they could get.
Well Lakeland is Polk county, known by people who grew up in FL as the meth capital of Florida. All arrest records are public record in Florida, so finding a judge wouldn't be hard I imagine. First appearance court rooms should be the link below. Not sure which judge it would have been on Wednesday.
I said Wednesday because if she was arrested Tuesday Florida does first appearances the next morning (unless it's a weekend) https://www.jud10.flcourts.org/virtual-courtroom-links/polk-first-appearance
"The working class is being oppressed to the point of breaking, so we better just keep them all locked up."
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
"Status of our country." Lol. A fucking gilded age shithole where the rich a finally being treated like the outta be?
Fucking florida. It's like they all live there to prove a just god does not exist as they haven't been washed away yet despite it being fucking florida.
No, but in 10 to 20 years nature will be doing the Lord's work.
The beatings will continue until moral improves.
She threatened the ruling class. And in a feudal society are not allowed to do that.
Honestly the judge can be added to the fucking list.
Evil. They’re evil.
Let's not make him a liar
The "status of our country" is genocidal empire of massive inequality destroying the planet.
How much do judges make? The average income is around 30k a year in us, and thats just the income not even saving.
No one making 30k is going to have savings
I don't get how people live on 30k. They have to be a multi income residence. Even in the cheap areas, that is so little in this country.
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.
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,
Ouch. "This place is a shit show," the judge said. (Not really, just fixed it for him).
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.
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.
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.
Yet, if Trump said it live in front of cameras, it would be "a joke."
In Trump's case it would be on 5th avenue in broad daylight.
Just a joke though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I recommend doing it like I did below the horizontal lines down there 👇
::: spoiler btw, tap me 4 formatting tip
To strike through, use ~~ before and after the offending text:
:::
The United States has the most equitable healthcare system on earth.Edit: sorry about that, cat stepped on my keyboard
For something really embarrassing -
Original embarrassing comment:
Newly edited comment:
Were their threats recorded? The fact that people have said worse doesn't change the fact that it was a threat.
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.
Seems like free speech to me?
First amendment doesn't cover true threats. So it all kinda depends on context and whether who it was said to felt as though they were in real danger.
Bullshit. Denying life saving care is a much much much more direct threat to life, as are abortion denials. The concept of a true threat depends mainly on whether you are an acceptable threat maker or not.
Except if you are actively dying and I refuse to help in my personal capacity, I'm not threatening to harm you. I'm just not helping you from imminent harm (presuming I didn't cause that imminent harm). Now if you're on fire and I'm currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it's shitty of me to not help. But if you're in a gunfight with someone and you're asking me to render aid as they are still a threat, sorry pal.
E: Apparently some ignorant idealists don't like making a distinction. Tough shit. From a legal standpoint, that's how it works.
Inaction is still an action. If you have the ability to save someone and you let them die, you may as well have started the fire yourself.
The only real point you have is that you don't render aid when there's an active threat.
Doesn't the law protect that in some way? I thought medical professionals were compelled to save lives first and then "worry" about costs later with the Hippocratic Oath and all. Or maybe it's limited to some instances? Idk, I'm not from the US and our system works way differently.
That is a "good Samaritan" law. They can compel you to help, but that could be calling law enforcement. That's also why in my examples the gunfight still had a deadly threat. No laws compel you to put yourself in danger to help.
Hot take here in Lemmy. Get it while it's still hot!
That doesn't seem like a true threat to me.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/true-threats
A person speaking out of anger who the person does not have a real reason to fear and believe they'll follow through is not a true threat. Saying "you're next" is clearly hyperbole. There's no chance she loses this case. They're just trying to make an example out of her for the moment to scare other people.
You might say it is a true threat in and of itself. There is very good reason for people to believe the state will arrest more people who use this speech. They're assuming this is true, because they want them to fear them in order to stop them. This is what we call terrorism, except it's the state doing it so I guess it's totally fine.
Even more importantly, it matters who you're threatening. Your wife? Meh, no biggie. An insurance company? Straight to jail.
"a bit hostile" -> straight to jail
Do not threaten commerce, they don't tolerate that. The money must flow at all costs.
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.
Ohh good point. Have a call center friend; heard stories...
Clearly she was saying that they were next to receive a gift basket for all their hard work in denying claims for profit
I can agree with your statement, but is it an act of terrorism? I don't think her threat should be categorized as terrorism.
I don't think it's terrorism either as I understand. Terrorism targets citizens for leverage.
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.
I'll just leave this Wikipedia entry for Castle Rock vs. Gonzales right here
She said "Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next," according to the article.
Funny part is insurance companies hear worse than this all day long however this is their trigger.
L O L
previously it was at some poor customer support agent in a 3rd world country, now the danger is to the mega donors oligarchy club members.
won’t be tolerated.
I hope she's right
That... doesn't sound like two party consent to me. Are you saying that I can tell someone "I'm recording this call" and they don't have to actually consent, they just have to not mention it?
Which makes it kind of bullshit and not two-party, since in many cases this is effectively the only means of communicating with these companies. There is no real option to not consent, especially in the case of healthcare companies, since it's not like a person can just choose to not have a body with real medical concerns (and in the US you legally can't even go uninsured without penalty). Calling this "two party" at this point is a fucking joke.
You can literally choose to not say anything about threatening or murdering someone over a recorded call.
Makes sense. I don't usually call customer service - I tend to use email or social media where possible, so that I have everything in writing with timestamps, just in case I need to refer back to it or use it as evidence.
Does that mean I can also record them?
They consent by continuing the call. They can otherwise hang up
And if you hang up you can't deal with the claim denial. So really, wouldn't that start to tread the line of coercion? If you don't consent to being recorded we'll continue to deny healthcare.
Oh honey... they were going continue denying the claim either way.
Legally, the fact that you didn't hang up the phone after that disclaimer means you consented.
It depends on the state. Not all states have two-party consent.
Because police exist to protect capital, not people.
If you have a recording of someone threatening to kill you, the police can absolutely act.
Threatening to kill someone unless they give you what you want is not protected speech. Otherwise, you could walk into a bank, demand they give you money under threat of violence, then walk out having committed no crimes.
I'm sorry to say, but that's not necessarily true. It would need to be a police recording or record of someone threatening you for them to actually have to do anything. You could walk into a precinct with a bona fide video of someone making a serious threat to your life and the police typically won't do anything about it. That same person could make a clip about murdering you and post it online with a clear plan to kill you and the police still wouldn't have to act. All of that is hearsay, regardless of how serious the intent is and the police can choose to ignore it. Unless it's someone worth helping, someone who might be able to make a sizable donation.
The police doesn't have to act if a person drags another person into the precinct and murders them in front of all the cops according stupid US courts (Warren v. District of Columbia).
That's why 2a and self-defense are such important rights. You want to be safe? Better take care of it yourself (or elect a 3rd party that will change the status quo, but fantasy solutions don't count).
Remember the time Lemmy was so outraged at the elections that they, un ironically, became Unabomber stans
Outraged at elections or outraged that despite decades of the football being tossed around each election, that nothing changes, and the only way to make change is via violence at this point?
I wish.
She didn't say she was going to be involved in whatever the "next" thing ment. Might have been a heart-felt warning against vigilantes.Also, the "next" thing might well have been "...to get much needed care denied".
Legally this is so flimsy it's a waste of time. Looking at wording from politicians there's way more direct calls to violence which will never be prosecuted. In practice it shows the pull of big corporations with cops, and inconveniences the life of an already inconvenienced person.
I was literally told by some dude that “if I see you again, I’ll fucking kill you” while I was walking my dog at night around my town’s library. I told the police and they didn’t do jack shit. Whereas this lady gets a hit by a $100,000 bond?
It's weird, because I took it to mean that the people she's talking to are going to be denied insurance in some way next.
I mean we can assume, and it's fairly likely, that it was a reference to the assassination, but American court is fucked if this is enough.
Proof that the justice system only serves the wealthy.
Clown world we living in
One dead cop, no more donut shop. More dead cops, the hurting stops
They are afraid.
Good.
Let's make them more..... concerned.
Fear can be a very powerful motivator, as everyone one rent check away from the street knows. It’s time for the leeches to feel some of that fear
You need to reread what the judge said when he set her bail. When the rich become afraid for their lives they send their law enforcement after those people they are afraid of and they fill the jails that they own with the people who have inspired their fear.
All this fervor is not going to result in a changing of healthcare. Not with our newly minted Republican Congress and a douche canoe for a president. No all of this is going to result in a curbing of our free speech rights and a deadlier police state than we already live in. To say nothing of what's going to happen to our voting rights in the next 4 years.
From the article’s source article:
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.
Just dont say what I dont wanna hear
It's because she said they're next, and it was recorded. Threats aren't protected speech.
The state threatens people all the time.
Well, she actually said "Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next,"
That's a pretty direct threat. The headline is misleading.
That's worth 100k bond? Really? That's more than voluntary manslaughter.
They're afraid of the common man now
They are supposed to be...
I know
I don't think so, no. Context is everything though. Before the assassination, just free speech, after, a threat of significant violence.
Also, free Luigi!
I suppose so, but the thought process of just jailing any verbal dissent... how long can, a healthcare system of all things, run on fear?
Well, it's not just any dissent, it a threat of violence. If she didn't say, "you're next" I'd be agreeing with most of the people in this thread.
Whoever posted this left that part out of the post. I wonder why.
Pointing out that what someone is doing puts a target on their back isn't necessarily you threatening them.
Where is the actual threat? You people are next, to get delayed, denied, or deposed.
For responding with the catchphrase insurance companies themselves created and live by. This isn't the suspect's catchphrase, but apparently even uttering these words back at health insurance companies is too much for them.
Well, “depose” isn’t pat of it. The killer added that part.
Well, depose isn't actually a type of pat, so I don't know what you are on about.
You said:
And I just said she added the part that the killer added too - depose.
Actually, you didn't, if we are being pandantic about it. 🙃
Okay, that’s what I was trying to convey.
"you people are next," also isn't part of it.
You mean basically the same sort of vague threat Trump has thrown around for decades that no one does anything about when it isn't directed at the rich, just at society in general?
This discussion has nothing to do with Trump. But, Trump should absolutely be in prison for his threats.
Ah, sorry, didn't realize all we had to do to solve the world's problem was switch over to idealistic make believe land.
The status of our country? What does that mean exactly?
The plebians are uppity
Correct, but the best way to deal with a moron talking in dog whistles is to ask what they mean by that and play dumb till they say the quiet part aloud.
Sure, but the judge isn't in this thread, so...
Jailed for using words to describe what insurance companies do?
Judge is trying to fill their year-end quota.
Let's be real, the "You people are next" is probably the reason for jail.
"... 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I couldn't agree more, especially as it's applied to this story.
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.
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
Context means everything. It's obviously a threat.
Looks like a lot of us are going to jail over the next 4 years.
Well yeah, those camps won't fill themselves!
They can't jail all of us. Deny, defend, depose
That won't stop them from trying. After all, the prisons are profit centers for them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HCCEt09G9P8
Nothing like jail time to radicalized someone more. Judge is playing 5d cheese by providing motivation.
Man, cheese with 2 extra dimensions has to be really delicious.
I'm guessing one of the dimensions is time, so we're talking about an aged cheese. The fifth dimension, I've no idea what it could be
You couldn't handle it!
It's very similar to how it feels to chew 5 gum
Mind blowing really
Getting her in touch with the people that can get the job done.
Freedom of speech, as long as it's completely meaningless.
Let's free her
https://gofund.me/cdefb827
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.
Lol, catch phrase or actual corporate practice? Because quoting a company memo to said company is apparently a threat.
The depose part was the assassin's, and she followed it with, "You people are next." context is important, and context makes this a threat.
I'm sure the "Free Speech" people are up in arms about this, right?
please, the free speech brigade only protects important speech, like calling for minority executions
You need the credible threat cheat code. We should vote to make it legal to kill health insurance CEOs.
Yes, actually, I am. This is nowhere near an actionable threat and arresting her over it is insanity and should be criminal itself.
It was the, "You people are next". If she had just used his catchphrase I doubt we'd be here.
I didn't think that holds muster either. It could mean many different things, even in context. The bar for true threats in the US is very high, as it should be. They clearly wanted to make an example of her to nip this class consciousness in the bud, and our legal system is certainly prone to bad decisions and practices, but in theory I can't see this passing that high bar.
"You people are next" does seem pretty threat-ish, however:
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 is towards the ruling class. They can't let this grow into something that threatens them.
It's easily argued that the statement was a warning, not a threat.
Why? She was delayed, denied, and deposed. If it's so bad then jail the insurer.
Depose is the assassin's addition, not part of the healthcare tactics. You can't depose someone who's already at the bottom
Clearly what we all mean when we say depose is get them in front of a lawyer asking questions on the record.
I'll make the textual argument that depose could mean "To lay down; to divest one's self of; to lay aside." Which i believe applies.
Delay, deny, and depose the FBI. The FBI isn't acting like this during a Trump presidency, this is the most lenient it gets at, during a democratic presidency. With a Trump presidency, Americans should familiarize themselves with current Russian society to know what they should expect for its future. Fuck your messed up police state, Americans, and fuck a constitution that only seems to be propaganda bullshit that is too much for the FBI to live by.
Trump LITERARILY incited a violent mob that killed a cop and the FBI was like "ugh, we're so weak our hands are tied 😭"
But some lady venting over our shitty healthcare and there they go like Rambo.
This is why people don't trust cops, and this is why people hate the rich.
I agree with the end of what you wrote, but I thought the mob didn't actually kill the police officer? I try to absorb news from diverse sources so I'm used to getting different versions of a story. I wonder which version is more spun?
Edit after writing that comment, I looked at the wiki article about it. I guess the police officer was pepper sprayed by two rioters, one of whom got 7 years prison for that. The officer died the next day of two strokes. There was some misreporting about the cause of his death, but it was ruled natural causes. That determination also ended up a little controversial.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html
5 people died during the riot.
As far as I'm concerned, Trump is directly responsible for those.
That article isn't very great, and since it was written just 5 days after the events, it had to be later corrected. It sounds like there were realistically only two deaths that were related to the events of the day. One was maybe crushed trying to push through a police line. One was shot by police. The officer, I already addressed in my edit he died of strokes the following day, ruled natural causes. One was a trump supporter who died of a heart attack, and another was a trump supporter who died of a stroke, but it didn't sound like either of them were involved in the mob activity. I'd be curious to read a more recent analysis of those five people's deaths, the wiki today doesn't read much like that article about the police officer.
You're right within 5 days there weren't all the deaths. Four officers killed themselves due to the events of January 6th. I guarantee they were Republicans who had their own people attacking them for doing their job.
Lol you sound like the VA...oh you were beaten and pepper sprayed in a high-stresd situation....but died of a completely unrelated stroke? Guess it was unrelated. The officers died because of the actions of trump taint-lickers.
This will definitely ease tensions among the masses and rouse support for the Healthcare execs lmao
Won't someone think of the CEOs.
I think of them all the time actually...
Her expression says I can't believe this shit. I can't, either.
Her expression says "I'm shocked that my white skin and light eyes aren't absolving me of responsibility as usual".
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..
What about free speach?
Freeze Peach is only when they're calling for war and lynching people they don't like. When it comes to ACTUAL controversy you go to jail right away!
nothing controversial here, almost all of us want to do something like this but are either too chicken or have dependents that we do not want to leave behind alone by going to jail.
Don't forget the capitalist ideology based on profiting from the denial of basic human needs. Not just free but completely indoctrinated!
I knew those frozen peach yogurts were up to something
It doesn't cover threats of violence.
Are u saying quoting someone who committed violence is a threat of violence? What if i where to say liberty, equality, fraternity is that a threat of guillotine?
Saying, "you people are next," isn't quoting anyone, but it plus the quote of the assassin is clearly a threat.
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.
Per the GoFundMe, she was released and charges dropped:
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.
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.
Yes. That is the job. But the fact that they already take the brunt doesn't justify anyone screaming/abusing/threatening/ect the CSR.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Again, I neither said nor implied that it was. I made it pretty clear that I was responding to this specific statement:
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'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!
It is clear your just spinning your wheels at this point unable to grasp anything I am saying. You think CSR agents deserve respect because reasons. I believe they are the front facing staff so they can and will deal with customers who get upset.
Furthermore this was a disproportionate response that only a bootlicker would defend. I would not of reported anything as this agent. It is much like calling the cops unnecessarily. Sure you can do it, and it may be within your rights, but is a dick move.
The CSR agent is not blameless here and I doubt their professionalism as I did endure a lot and always managed to turn the call around by empathizing with the client. It was not always possible but the only times I reported someone was for repeated harassment.
As I said considering the situation your insistence on supporting the CSR without taking into context what actually happened makes you out to be a corporate apologist. If not, perhaps you are just being disingenuous.
As I already stated there is a glut a jobs and if their company faced staffing shortages because people decided they did not want to work for them it would be a good thing. Shitty companies that do shitty things lose employees.
This would force them to raise their wages which would cut into their profits. This is about the only negative thing that can happen to a company. There have been many companies that have gone under because of scandalous behavior and people refusing to work for them.
Finally the whole blameless thing is pretty rich when you think about it. No one is forced to work there and they are the front line for the corporation.
They serve the system killing people through overpriced shitty healthcare. They don't make the decisions, but in this company they are there to stonewall people so they can't get help when their claims are denied.
Just like soldiers they are just following orders. Oh wait lady malaria says we can't blame them. No, this is really ridiculous when you think about it. I won't blame the people helping to kill me because they are low on the totem poll in the corporate world.
So to some it up. Yes, we should should respect all humans, no this was not right, and CSR are not blameless. Cheers!
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.
Found a Karen on Lemmy wow
Hey guys, I found the bootlicker!
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.
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.
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
Edit: yes, y'all apparently are rocks or trees. The rest of us need to eat for sustenance and have responsibilities beyond " what news headline will garner my outrage today"
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?
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 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 was just following orders."
I'd rather be homeless than get paid to kill innocent people.
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 am fairly certain insurance claim staff are used to hearing worse.
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
working for whom ?
This occurred in Deregulated Fucking Florida and I thought the damn MAGATs are for freedom of speech.
Only for billionaires or corporations
They're determined aren't they? To just completely make Luigi a martyr.
I'm surprised they aren't just burying the news completely.
Doing this shit is just throwing gasoline on the fire
Jesus fucking Christ we are so damn cooked. It's actually joever.
signed, a floridian
Ah yes, more of that freedom we crow so much about as our brand.
The company she spoke to is free to take her premium payments for years, then to kill her through claim denial, and she's free say "thank you for taking my premiums all those years and now denying my claim" and then die quietly.
Herp derp Freedom🇺🇸
First "witch" burned by inquisition of capitalism
First? You're joking, right?
I feel this is only the beginning.
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.
My my aren't we the butthurt bunch these days? heh
Seriously this is fairly extreme given the public's delight in the shooting.
The last part was probably it but its clear they are scared. That fills my heart with joy.
I hope the CEOs lie awake at night with fear in their cold dead hearts.
No they don't, and you know it. There will be less in person meetings tho. Or at least more often at retreat locations, not at the usual headquarters.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not protect speech that threatens or incites violence.
Is it really a threat though? Idk. She's repeating some words and saying "you're next", but not what they're next for.
You're next....to get no health insurance cover.
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.
In all honesty it can be perceived as them being next in getting their claim denied and not only as the threat it as well be perceived.
It's so very close to Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don't Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It that it could as well be a misunderstanding as a threat.
They are going to have a tough time proving that in court. I bet this will get pleaded out to some small charge though.
If someone referenced a recent assassination then said, "You people are next," would you seriously not take that as a threat?
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
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.
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.
If she were a parrot yeah sure, but there she is, and yet, featherless
Without the means to do it it’s not a threat.
Incorrect
How do you know she didn't have means to do it?
That’s up for the
copscourts to prove. This is a sham case. If trump said that shit he would be applauded “oh that’s just trump being trump!”He literally said that Liz Cheney should be shot in the face, and nothing happened.
No, that's up to the courts and investigators to prove. Cops did the right thing here, for once.
That’s what I meant
I don't know about insurance but I worked once alongside a Google call center DB team, for adwords and they received lots of messages like these over inbound AND outbound calls, emails or chats.
Google is EXTREMELY strict with threats issued to their own employees, even third party contractors, to the point they would ABSOLUTELY and without chance of appeals blacklist people like this person.
To dimension the sheer scale of being blacklisted by Google, that means that every IP address they ever registered you using, be it by VPN or whatever, gets thrown in a black hole you can never escape
Google services or accounts you linked using those IPs? Fucked forever.
If you were part of the unlucky people who get a static IP set, get ready to start a lengthy process just to remove your account from being associated to that one.
Marketing manager accounts? Screwed for life. Might as well say goodbye to your job and consider never advertising through adwords again.
And I'm not even touching what happens with devices, payment processors, YouTube, educative domains and, worst of all, corporate compute instances.
If Google didn't destroy you in those cases, your company and your bank certainly will.
So yeah, if Google takes that shit seriously, you bet a healthcare provider will do the same
That seems impossible to manage... you would cripple google by running a botnet tainting millions of IPs that will get cycled to legitmate users.
Stephen Bonczyk of Lakeland Florida is a tyrant and fascist who doesn't respect our right to free speech in the US. In my opinion.
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.
Those LLs in the llc titles are coming into focus