United States | News & Politics

2003 readers

1500 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

[email protected]

246

Lakeland woman threatens insurance company, says ‘Delay, Deny, Depose’: police (www.wfla.com)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Lakeland woman was charged Tuesday after police said she ended a call to an insurance company with the words, “Delay, Deny, Depose.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

The way I can read her mind is by remembering “Presumption of innocence.”

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.