It’s crazy because while that could read as a threat, it could just as easily be read like: “You’re doing the same thing that got that insurance ceo killed. You’re (i.e. your company, people like you, etc are) probably next on the list if this keeps happening to people.”
But that scenario definitely does not meet the legal definition of a threat. It’s just a statement of opinion based on current events - she did not threaten anyone necessarily
I should have clarified - that’s the threat that those prosecuting her are referring to. It is a threat by any contextual interpretation, but it’s indeed harmless in comparison to other things that people get away with without consequences all the time. For example murderers in uniform.
It’s crazy because while that could read as a threat, it could just as easily be read like: “You’re doing the same thing that got that insurance ceo killed. You’re (i.e. your company, people like you, etc are) probably next on the list if this keeps happening to people.”
That kind of is the threat? The dumb thing is the worker on the phone shouldn’t feel threatened because (s)he isn’t a stinking rich CEO.
But that scenario definitely does not meet the legal definition of a threat. It’s just a statement of opinion based on current events - she did not threaten anyone necessarily
I should have clarified - that’s the threat that those prosecuting her are referring to. It is a threat by any contextual interpretation, but it’s indeed harmless in comparison to other things that people get away with without consequences all the time. For example murderers in uniform.