"Know your place, peasants"

Dec 16, 2024 7:39 AM

RaySkye

Views

16651

Likes

553

Dislikes

23

This really feels like a shot across the bow from them. It might be time to remind them that they are not our rulers, they are OUR servants.

She threatened some poor call handler, not a bloodsoaked billionaire. fuck her.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

2 years ago (deleted Dec 19, 2024 3:41 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

They want you to be afraid. This is all it is.
Fearful won't join together against their oppressors.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Attention healthcare CEOs:

We don’t give a flying fuck about you or your shareholders profits.
We just want the healthcare that we need when the doctor says we need it.

Also, we know that it’s you that has driven up the costs of literally everything in the healthcare industry.

If the murder of that one CEO should have any takeaway, it should be that we are sick of your shit.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Didn't UHC stocks go up for a bit after the murder?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

the moral of the story here is that if you're going to do violence, do not announce that you are going to do violence.

2 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Or threaten a peasant, apparently. The police are known for ignoring threats in between people, but when you threaten an establishment by the elite...

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yesterday, Daniel Boston commented on the page, confirming that reports about Briana Boston’s legal situation being fully resolved were incorrect. He clarified that 'her legal status has not changed' and the only change was her release from physical custody.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wtf do we do? They're obviously not acknowledging our shit. They want us to get over it and move on. What can we do?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

She didn't threaten them. She simply stated their own policy back at them. The police and the insurance company understand they can do these things to us, but we can't even say it back to them. That's why she's in jail and everyone else that works for the insurance isn't.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Man her words are so scary, it probably caused some mental stress, I hope those healthcare execs have good mental health coverage.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As much as I hate insurance companies, those headlines are just clickbait when they don't include the next few words she used

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Most people are aware of them, they're angry because they know similar action isn't taken when non-rich people have much worse and graphic threats said or sent to them. Consider she was locked up almost instantly and then given more restrictive bail than Epstein had after being convicted of raping children and you'll see who the legal system serves. How many women or men have been told 'eh can't help you' when they go to the cops under similar circumstances?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I 100% agree with you. All I'm saying is that the headline seems to deliberately misrepresent the situation - she wasn't charged because she said delay deny depose. She was charged because she said "you're next"

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

DDD is the link to Luigi though, 'you're next' is just vague and only even vaguely a threat with those said first.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I want more info on Zakir Hussain's death

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Who?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

ALL Healthcare NEEDS to be non-profit ! Also NO politicians should get paid !

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Old news is awesome! Anyway....

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Well the next time someone sends you threating texts or harrasses you online just say he said they would "delay, deny, depose" you and the police will actually do their fucking jobs for a change.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

youre lying. "delay, deny, depose" wasnt the threat. "youre next" was the threat.

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 9

You're next to be deposed? Threats must be taken literally.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

dont be obtuse. "delay, deny, depose" is a reference to a murder. thats what the "youre next" refers to.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 8

And all the stalkers that threatened to murder their prey but nothing happens because "well they have to do something first"? Funny how only in this situation are words a true threat.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It IS a shot across the bow.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

by saying their policy? I see the threat is only legal in one direction.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Note she also says "You're next", which was the actual threat.

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Clearly not. How many times do police shrug and walk away and a stalker murders their prey even after they verbally threatened them?

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hhhmm, so in future, if any woman of domestic abuse goes to the police and asks them to do something about their DV abuser and they say "tHErE iS nOThInG wE cAn Do." I will remember this.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So, just checking, i got this right. She threatened them with their own policy...?

2 years ago | Likes 59 Dislikes 2

I think it's because she also said something along the lines of "you're next", or something to that effect.

2 years ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 0

Which seems to be suspiciously absent in these headlines.

2 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 3

Gee it's almost like the media wants to sell you an opinion or something...

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Surprisingly, most try to sell the opposite of this article

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

i get her anger, i get it. shes pissed about the situation and released on the wrong target, i dont agree with that. the reaction to it is very telling though. you can have the same evidence on a stalker or anyone else and be told 'nothing we can do'. it definitely shows who the cops really care about. if anyone had doubts. justice is and will be pay to play unless we force a change, and peaceful isnt doing it

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

The solution is that those people who say such things SHOULD be prosecuted, and we should take steps to ensure women and other people threatened by such creeps are taken seriously by the police.

The solution is NOT to let this woman off for threatening people.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 6

i dont disagree, US has too broad of a veiw for freedom of speech. going after her while ignoring everyone else just because it was health insurance related its a good enough reason. it just proves how unfair the law is.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Delay, deny, depose? That's a mix of the two quotes, lol. Original was "Delay, deny, defend", then the killer's one was "deny, defend, depose".

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I hate health insurance companies, but they are not now, nor were they ever, our "servants". They're businesses that we have business relationships with. They've just managed to game the system to where we can buy something from them, they can refuse to deliver it, and we have very few options left to us.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

The option I always exercised was to refuse to do business with them, and my takeaway from a lifetime of that is that medical costs are so high because money has to go to the insurers. When I bypassed the insurers, my medical bills dropped radically. Medical providers offer much better rates to uninsured patients. The insurance industry provides no useful service; it is only a consumer of money and obstacle to health care.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

A good lawyer would get her off, because then they could also countersue the insurance companies by saying that they are "threatening" customers when they "delay, deny, depose"...

2 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 3

Are you a lawyer?

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Only if you ignore the bit where she said "all you people are next"

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 4

This post doesn't say anything about that so...

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Weird that that important context was cut out, isn't it!
Good rule of thumb; any time a headline says "person [did something that seems totally reasonable] and was arrested after", chances are there is massive missing context that explains why it happened

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not really. Because remember there have been people killed for calling police to get help. So someone being arrested does not always mean they actually did something wrong.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's not a threat to bodily harm. Any public defense attorney who only gets to look at the case notes for 5 seconds can have the charges dropped. Fuck the rich.

2 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

I think its a little disingenuous to pretend that there was no implied threat, given the context of the CEO shooting, when a literal assassin writes those 3 words on his bullets, then pairing that with "you're next".

It's pretty clear she was threatening to kill them.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Considering how many times police have told women that they can't help about abusive guys until they actually do anything physical, it would be par for the course. It's not like those guys are politicians with thin skin, right? Also, informing someone of their imminent demise doesn't mean that I would be facilitating such a conclusion. A warning != threat. Cops get that confused too, but they're bitches. If the woman had said "I'm coming for you" or something specific, you could argue it.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

But just saying "you're next" does not imply a direct threat from the woman.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

So a direct reference to a murder, followed by a promise to repeat that on more people isn't a threat?
Like fine if it gets dropped in court, but that is valid grounds to arrest someone.
I would demand that if someone made similar threats while calling a gay bar or something, I'm not going to suddenly be okay with threatening some poor call centre worker drone in a health insurance company

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is from a woman arrested for threatening other lgbt+ businesses after the Club Q shooting in CO. She threatened to shoot them up herself. THAT'S the reason she was arrested. https://www.them.us/story/violent-threats-phone-calls-club-q-arrest

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well there you go! Proves my point!

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Next for what, though? Being denied, defended, and deposed?

She never threatened any specific actions. Were this a woman telling the police about a threat she received from a stalker, this wouldn't even earn her the rights to a restraining order.

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

If I called a synagogue, made a reference to the holocaust, and said "You people are next", would you consider that a threat?
She made a clear reference to a murder, followed by a threat to do the same, she should be arrested for that.
That stalker should also be arrested. You've got the hypocrisy the wrong way round, you shouldn't be asking why was she arrested, you should be demanding his arrest too.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I ain't here to defend the lady's actions. Do I consider it a threat? Absolutely. It's obvious what she meant.

I'm calling out the fact that if normal citizens used this language against each other, the law would typically not take action.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You absolutely were defending it, but now that you have pivoted I agree with you: this should be the expected result of anyone issuing a clear threat to anyone else.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I think its a little disingenuous to pretend that there was no implied threat, given the context of the CEO shooting, when a literal assassin writes those 3 words on his bullets, then pairing that with "you're next".

It's pretty clear she was threatening to kill them.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

It's 100% an implied threat.

But implied threats usually don't get traction with law enforcement.

I wonder what's different this time?

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Probably the national news coverage on the luigi case.

Not saying its right, all cases like this should be charged.

Also so you agree its an implied threat and therefore a crime right? So this woman should go to jail right?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If this is the same story that's been posted here for days, it's missing the part where she said "you're next."

2 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 13

So? She wasn't saying I''m going to wear your skin, she was saying you're the next contestant on the Price is Right!

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So?

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Fingers crossed...

2 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

See, this is why she is getting charged.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Now ask the police to do something about a stalker who is telling you how they're going to murder you and see why people are actually upset

2 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

Yes, police should do something about that. We should push as a society for more to be done there.

This woman still shouldn't be let off.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 9

Why is it our responsibility to push for more to be done when the legal system has shown that it can already protect people, but refuses to protect people who aren't threatening billion dollar corporations? It is their responsibility to apply the law evenly

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I agree. I never said otherwise.

What do you do when authorities don't adhere to their responsibilities? Do you whine and complain until they do it, or do you take action and demand change?

All rights are fought for, never given.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

Congratulations, you figured out why people are so upset that the law has been properly followed

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1