No
Betteridge’s Law of Headlines. Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “No.”
/thread
No need to scroll further, folks.
Of course not, but they’re going to make an example out of her to deter the rest of the proles.
Except that’s not how that works. She’s going to be a martyr instead.
There is zero chance anyone in a power position in the US can grasp these terms and their real life ramifications.
Unfortunately that’s my conclusion as well. They’ll do this and congratulate themselves on teaching those poors a lesson. In better language I’m sure but that’s the core meaning. And while they’re doing that the “poors” are going to be making protest signs, at the very least.
I think Luigi Mangione is the martyr here.
There’s always room for another.
This reminds me of Minority Report. Arrested by the pre-crime unit.
Guilty without the crime actually being committed.
If her crime is threatening then that actually is what she did, in the past.
The punishment of 15 years is just way over the top
That’s not what she did. There are legal standards for what constitutes a threat, and what she said isn’t one.
The legal standards you mentioned seem to disagree with you
You know what? Everyone deserves freedom of speech, and threatening healthcare CEOs is not, in my opinion, a breach of it. There is a huge difference between threatening vulnerable minorities and threatening invulnerable minorities.
Doesn’t a threat have to be credible? As in you can make a threat if you’d like to but it has to actually be a legitimate threat. This isn’t that.
Realistically unless someone says this phrase and has google searches of the CEOs home address, this isn’t a credible threat at all.
You have to make sure you make threats so outlandish that you couldn’t possibly execute them, like “I’m going to grab Trump by the ankle and spin around really fast, and then let go, launching him directly into the sun”
Maybe if we start a rumor that’s there’s billions of exploitable people on Pluto all the rich CEO’s will race each other there, die like the ones in that shitty submarine and leave us the fuck alone.
Happy ending.
“Freedom of speech” in US Law means that the government cannot suppress ideas, expressions, or beliefs so long as those ideas or beliefs do not harm specific peoples, nor negatively impact public health and morals, nor negatively impact national security. In some cases, it isn’t allowed to promote harm of protected classes including race, religion, skin color, gender, or disability, but in the USA that often becomes a civil matter.
If I had my way we’d be even more strict about it: hate speech would be an actual crime and sexual orientations would also be protected classes.
So a woman quoting a murderer who assassinated an insurance company CEO, directly sending that quote to the insurance company that denied her claim, is not and will never be covered by freedom of speech.
No, the executives, BoD and major investors do.
Shit like this is going to happen until us poors remember our place.
Lol no
Jury Nullification is my right.
The thing about Jury Nullification is that you have to make it through the majority of a trial. 97-98% of criminal cases (in the U.S.) end in a plea deal without ever going to trial.
Sure, but that’s on them. Taking a deal is always in the hands of the defendant. But if it looks like public opinion is on their side and the concept of jury Nullification has become common knowledge, that might be enough to substantially swing what’s offered in those plea deals. Prosecutor might be generous to avoid the jury letting them off Scott free.
not on lemmy.world evidently
Did she say she was running for the presidency? Because in that case, she could take someone out on main street and she could grab them by the pussy too and nobody would say anything.
She should have tried to purchase a president or maybe purchase the presidency itself for a self pardon.
Joe should pardon her wtf Joe!
Sounds more like a setup imho
This is so sad
Briana Boston is her name
That’s for the court to decide.
For us, the people, to decide. You dropped your clown wig.
When the court decides that IS the people deciding, judges are a public office and the jury is literally just a group of people who have to make a unanimous decision. You dropped your red star.
Not a communist or whatever, dummy. The people decide, dummy. The court is an arranged meeting place for those people to inform the judge of their consensus opinion, dummy.
You dropped your clown wig, dummy.
lmao
I think she’s guilty (you can’t be making threats like that on the heels of someone actually committing an act of violence) but even that is too much time. IDEK if she deserves jail time at all. I’d rather see her get a fine and maybe a month or two of community service.
I don’t believe that “You people are next.” is a direct threat.
What’s the cool-down timer on the free speech special ability ?
Asking for a friend.
I don’t believe that “You people are next.” is a direct threat.
Sounds pretty direct to me, especially in the context of recent events. I don’t fault the CS rep at all for reporting it to her superiors and the police. Totally reasonable to be wary of copycat crimes or just similar acts of violence against healthcare insurers in general.
“you people are next” doesn’t sound direct to me because “next” for what? Next for a random vigilante to shoot, next to die in general, next to face bad PR?
My interpretation also leaves no room to imply I’ll be the one actioning whatever the “next” thing is. I’d use “you’re next” in the same use case as “karma will get you” or “the universe will balance out your luck” it’s more of a cosmic wish than a rise to action.
She made a direct reference to the slogan used by the guy who murdered an insurance company’s CEO, then said, “you people are next.” That absolutely can reasonably be construed as a direct threat of violence. Whether or not you think the person making the threat will actually do it is another question, but the context and grammar the direct threat interpretation totally logical.
I can see how it’s directly linked to “people are out there shooting CEOs for this, you’re next” is threatening, but I dont see how the language of the threat implies that the person saying the threat has any intention to also be the shooter, and not just that they wish and believe that a shooter is out there with this CEO on their hit list.
I don’t believe that “You people are next.” is a direct threat.
I’m sure you don’t, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of what she said.
What’s the cool-down timer on the free speech special ability ?
What do you mean by “special ability”?
I don’t think she was actually making a threat, but she sure chose to sound like she was, which was fucking stupid on her part. Given how the rest of the evidence makes it clear the threat wasn’t serious, I don’t think she should be charged as such, but perhaps a lesser charge that affords her a fine or something. Can’t let people get away with that shit, but charging her like she’s making a serious threat of violence is a waste of taxpayer money.
trump stole 500 million dollars from the state of ny… rapists spend less than a decade
this is a warning to poor people
She hasn’t been sentenced and the maximum for rape is
-
For Aggravated sexual abuse with children: Life imprisonment without parole or any term not less than 30 years
-
For all other Federal Sexual Abuse cases: Life without parole or any other term
Unpopular opinion: When the minimum prison sentence for child abuse is higher than that for murder, every child abuser has a strong incentive to kill their victim, getting rid of the most dangerous witness with no further risk to themselves.
Crimes aren’t mutually exclusive, you would be charged for both.
Yes, and getting charged 30+ years no matter what makes any additional punishment completely irrelevant.
No criminal is ever deterred from crime by the thought that it could get worse than 30 years in prison.Right but there is absolutely no incentive to kill the victim as you previously claimed.
-
Reminds me of the case way back in the day with someone who pirated music getting insane fines and how it was juxtaposed with the relatively small settlement an airline had to pay when its negligence actually killed people.
It seems I remember Kim Dotcom
listinglosing his extradition case, as well.
