Summary

Briana Boston, 42, was charged with threatening a health insurance company after repeating words linked to the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

During a recorded call with Blue Cross Blue Shield about a denied claim, Boston said, “Delay, deny, depose, you people are next,” echoing phrases engraved on bullet casings at Thompson’s murder scene.

Authorities allege she exploited the CEO’s homicide to make the threat.

Boston, a mother of three with no prior criminal record, was arrested and held on $100,000 bail amidst warnings of potential copycat incidents targeting healthcare executives.

  • FuglyDuck
    link
    English
    -28 hours ago

    After you reference a killing, and then say “you are next”, that’s a threat.

    The blatant implication is that the person they’re talking to is the next to get killed.

    It really is quite clear.

    It might be an empty threat, but the blue cross person can’t know that.

    • @feedum_sneedson
      link
      22 hours ago

      She’d have to be much more specific. It’s completely ambiguous.

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      74 hours ago

      You’re saying it’s simple. It’s really not as simple as you think. The legal requirement is a true threat. (Google it) Just threatening someone in anger or frustration has been ruled to not be a true threat. They need a reason to believe you’ll follow through. This clearly is not that. It’s bullshit. It is purely done as an act of terrorism by the state. They want people to fear even mentioning the killer’s message.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        English
        24 hours ago

        They need a reason to believe you’ll follow through. This clearly is not that. It’s bullshit.

        you don’t think they have a reason? I do. and they clearly did, or they’d never have reported it to cops.

        Remember, we’re talking about a phone rep for a fucking hated health insurance company. They’re used to dealing with angry people. they deal with them every other phone call.

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 hours ago

          Like you said, they deal with angry customers all the time. Why would they suspect this person is any different? It’s just about sending a message. They want us to be scared to ever bring it up, so they need to make an example out of some people.

          • FuglyDuck
            link
            English
            13 hours ago

            or. just hear me out here. the lady really was scared because there’s something there.

            Even if it doesn’t rise to the level of being criminality, it’s still a threat, and that employee felt threatened enough to report it. do you really think anyone is actually scared to talk about it? I’m not. you’re not. Nobody else here isn’t either.

            • Cethin
              link
              fedilink
              English
              63 hours ago

              It’s a threat, yeah. True threat is what’s required by the law. You can’t just arrest everyone who makes a threat and hold them on $100,000 bail. That’d be insane.

              do you really think anyone is actually scared to talk about it?

              Yes. The judge just about admitted that was the purpose of setting the bail so high. You don’t get a bail set at $100,000 for a non-violent offender with family and no flight risk generally. It’s purely intimidation. They don’t want people to threaten the ultra-wealthy’s money, but the state is encouraged to threaten the people to make them stop.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 hours ago

      After you reference a killing, and then say “you are next”, that’s a threat.

      Nope, even you say so:

      The blatant implication is that the person they’re talking to is the next to get killed.

      Notice how its not that the person speaking will do it even in your own rewording? That’s how it’s not a threat

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        English
        -17 hours ago

        They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.

        It doesn’t matter if she’s the one doing the killing, doesn’t matter if it was “serious”, they used the threat of violence.

        It’s really that simple. You’re arguing a technicality that does not exist. Any reasonable person being on the other end of that line would have interpreted it as a threat. Period. Full stop.

        Maybe the lady shouldn’t have been denied. That’s probably true. She still made a threat; and she did so on a line that we all know is being recorded.

        I don’t know that it needs more than a “don’t do that”, but saying it wasn’t a threat is factually and legally incorrect.

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 hour ago

          It doesn’t matter if she’s the one doing the killing, doesn’t matter if it was “serious”, they used the threat of violence.

          It literally does matter legally, which is what’s being discussed surrounding her arrest, by law enforcement, and her bail being set by a Justice in a court of law.

          Please, before continuing further, do some reading on “true threat,” which is the legal requirement.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/true-threats

          https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/true-threats/

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          06 hours ago

          They implied the worker on the other end of the line would be the next one to suffer grevious bodily harm or death.

          That’s called a warning, threats only can come from people who intend to act

          “You’re going to be next if you keep acting like this” is t a threat. “I’m going to make you the next one” is

          Its really that simple