this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
246 points (99.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2021 readers
810 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
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
Probably the last sentence
The woman just means that the people she was talking to will be screwed over by insurance too.
She was saying we’re all in this together, basically!
Her last sentence was a prediction, not a threat.
You can read her mind?
Yes, actually, I can, at least as far as legality is concerned. The way I can read her mind is by remembering "Presumption of innocence." She is innocent unless and until the state proves her guilt beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
In this case, that means there must be zero ambiguity to her statement. If her statement can be reasonably interpreted in multiple ways, and at least one of those ways is innocent, that interpretation is the only interpretation the law is allowed to use.
So yes, as far as the law is concerned, I can, indeed, read her mind: She was predicting the actions of a copycat, not issuing a threat.
The way you think the world works and the way the world actually works are two entirely different things. The justice system exists to punish the poor, and punish rich people who have fucked over other rich people.
Even if she wins, she would only do so from pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyer fees as this case continues as one judge reviews it, it gets appealed, and then some other judge looks at it. Over the course of years, and she'll be rotting in prison during that time. Because you know... the $100,000 fucking bond!
97% of the time, they take the plea deal, anyway.
You're talking about being found guilty of the crime. You can definitely be arrested for making a statement that in the context was a terroristic threat, and be found not guilty of the crime.
Her arrest was absolutely warranted. Her statement could easily mean that she planned on opening fire on the employees. Not taking that seriously in a country where mass shootings happen almost daily is very stupid.
We also don't have all of the facts on the case. The police don't release all of the details of their cases before trial.
No, the investigation might have been warranted. The arrest was not. The charges were not. Conducting an investigation is "taking that seriously", but the results of that investigation did not justify an arrest or charges.
Her right to free speech was infringed upon.
She doesn't even own a gun and seems to pose little tangible threat, yet they're claiming intent to commit mass murder or terrorism. Its a ridiculous stretch from that little comment
You do realize that it's possible to possess a weapon that isn't registered to you, right?
Why would you not take a person referencing a recent assassination and telling you that you are next seriously? I'd 100% call the cops if that happened to me when I was a call center agent.
You'd only think it was a credible threat if your system was so fucked up the powder keg was lit
Mass shootings are almost a daily occurrence in the US. Why wouldn't you take the threat seriously?
If this person had actually shot up a call center and the FBI was found to have said, "Eh, they probably didn't mean it that way," people would be equally as outraged.
There's a difference between investigating a possible threat, and attempting to prosecute. I suggest you learn it.
I'm not saying it shouldn't have been followed up on but, given what we know now, it seems ridiculous to charge her with intent to commit a mass shooting or terrorist attack