1065
Woman jailed after using shooting suspect's catchphrase as insurance company denied claim.
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
1065 points (99.1% liked)
News
23627 readers
2377 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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
Yea this part is not gonna look good in court.
Just those 3 words without adding more would sound less bad, might not have gotten out of the arrest, but adding "You people are next" just ensured the arrest and charges.
Yet, if some citizen tells another citizen directly, "I'm going to kill you until you are dead," and that second citizen then goes to the police to report it, the police will respond, "we have no proof other than your hearsay, person one has to actually commit some act of violence before we can even issue a restraining order (worthless) let alone do any 'police work.'"
This is how it acts in citizen-to-citizen interaction in the real world. A business gets special treatment versus a citizen, yet again.
(Regardless of how crass or inappropriate her angry comment was. Remember: America lets Nazis exist because "free speech" - it's a huge hypocrisy.)
In the Article:
Her problem is that she said it over the phone, every company records all phone calls, they always have an automatic voice saying "this call will be recorded for quality and training purposes" that makes anything you say after implied to have given consent for the recording, bypassing any two-party comsent laws.
I don't dispute the fact that corporations and rich people have preferrential treatment, but having evidence like a phone call recording is what's ultimately gonna get law enforcement to act.
If you have a video of someone saying "I'm gonna get my gun and shoot you until your're dead" to your face, that would probably have higher chances of getting law enforcement to act rather than just a "he said she said" heresay. No guarantees that they'll act (cops are mostly lazy and don't wanna do their jobs), but its much much better than just you claiming they threatened you without providing any evidence.
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?
You can't secretly record phone calls in two party consent states. But you can say "Just so you know, this phone call is being recorded" and if they continue to talk, they are implicitly giving consent. At least that's how it always have worked, otherwise it would've been illegal for basically every company to record phone calls. Every called customer service for any reason? Notice how they all tell you that the call is recorded? Its been like this since I ever learned about phone calls. If it's illegal, you'd be hearing about lawsuits all the time.
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?
You can. I'd also say "Just letting you know, I'm recording this phone call" just to be on the safe side.
I mean you could always make illegal recordings and you won't get arrested, its just that it might not be admissible in court.
And if you live in a one-party consent state, its always legal to record, even when the other person is in a two-party consent state, even without informing or getting consent.
That's incorrect twice.
First off, you don't have to tell them you're recording if they've already informed you they're recording. They've already consented to being recorded.
And when recording a conversation across state lines from a single-party consent state to a 2-party consent state, the 2-party rules are in effect.
Otherwise they could just route all call centers through single-party states and skip the recording.
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.
Yes of course. But maybe we don't have to stick only to specific bad example and can speak to the practice in general, perhaps?
I mean it's literal common sense but sure
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.
Oh absolutely.
It's just down right petty how they go out of their way to be evil. Piss people off until they lose control of their emotions and say bunch of shit and record it.
Legally, the fact that you didn't hang up the phone after that disclaimer means you consented.
Some states you don't even need that. I live in a one-party state, so I wouldn't need to tell someone they're being recorded, as long as I knew they were.
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.