Your affiant asked Boston if she used the phrase “Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next.” during her call earlier today with BlueCross BlueShield to which she acknowledged she said it and apologized. Boston stated she used those words because it’s what is in the news right now. Boston advised she learned of the phrase because of the current events regarding the UnitedHeathcare homicide. Boston stated she did not own any firearms, and she was not a danger to anyone. Boston further stated the healthcare companies played games and deserved karma from the world because they are evil.
A death threat is a death threat.
You don’t make death threats on record like she did. You send an anonymous letter with the words made up of cut out letters from magazines and newspapers then pasted on the paper, being careful not to leave any prints or DNA.
Lol, I think the magazine letters would tip them off. When is the last time you read a physical magazine or had access to one?
I was gonna say to print different web pages, but apparently printers have fingerprints that can tie the printed material directly to the unique printer.
Yeah, obviously stupid to do it in a way that could be tied back to you, but this is constitutionally protected speech.
The supreme court ruled in Virginia v Black that only “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” are unlawful, and this doesn’t communicate an intent to commit violence, just that someone should.
She said “you’re next” very obviously referring to the murder of the United Health CEO. If that’s not a direct that, I don’t know what is.
The supreme court has defined legally actionable threats extremely narrowly. Yeah that’s a pretty direct threat, but I don’t think it meets the legal standard of a “true threat”
In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. The Supreme Court ruled someone saying “If we catch any of you going into these racist stores, we’re going to break your damn neck.” was protected speech.
That’s more direct than her threat.
There’s an insanely high standard for convicting someone over a threat.
Sure but did someone actually break someone’s neck a few days before? I think context is also important.
Btw, I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I don’t think this woman should’ve been arrested. Her threat was obviously empty.
For the ‘true threat’ standard, it doesn’t matter since she had no connection to the shooting.
Not broken necks, but from the Wikipedia page: “In at least 10 instances, individuals who violated the boycott experienced instances of violence, including shots fired into their homes, bricks thrown through their windshields, and tires on their cars slashed.”