Is $100K Bond Fair for Woman Accused of Insurer Threats? Experts Weigh in

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

The 42-year-old woman accused of threatening Blue Cross Blue Shield after the health insurance company allegedly denied some medical claims by her, is being held on a $100,000 bond, according to local media.

Posted by retort at 07:56 AM | 9 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

UPDATE: As of 12/14, Briana Boston has been placed on house arrest after meeting the threshold of her $100K bond. Boston is permitted to go shopping once a week, attend Dr appts, church, work, & is under GPS monitoring 24/7. She is still charged with terrorism. www.qasimrashid.com/p/florida-wo ...

[image or embed]
-- Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@qasimrashid.com) December 14, 2024 at 11:10 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Is it fair?

Absolutely!

If she had a beef, there are legal ways to contest a decision. A Lawyer, for example.

Now she going to be a convicted terrorists and have to contend with a prison health care system. And she'll lose her home either way.

She doesn't look too bright. Betcha she used her own tracible phone.

#1 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-12-17 10:03 AM | Reply

No doubt it was Anthem BCBS which is the number 2 or 3 denier of claims. Miles ahead of the pack.

#2 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-12-17 11:49 AM | Reply

#1 | Posted by Twinpac

While I don't disagree, do you think she has the resources to fight a multi-billion dollar company?

#3 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-12-17 11:50 AM | Reply

"Now she going to be a convicted terrorists.."

Not likely. I am not a lawyer but I don't see a terrorist threat in anything she said. I see a very frustrated customer.

It's the same kind of threateningly vague non specific language I see Trumpy and maga maroons use here practically everyday.

#4 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-12-17 03:08 PM | Reply

A conviction will be very difficult.

She didn't make a direct threat. There is no specificity if SHE is threatening to kill them or telling them someone else will randomly kill them next.

#5 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-12-17 07:01 PM | Reply

Also isn't it absolutely amazing that these threats are taken SO seriously against the rich...but ignored for everyone else that works for a living?

Kidding. Not amazing at all in our country where CEO's are getting a special 911 number in New York.

#6 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-12-17 07:02 PM | Reply

This isn't a threat at all. This woman shouldn't be in jail and should sue for violation of her free speech rights. Implying that something will happen because of someone's actions is not saying you are going to be the one doing the something.

It's not a direct threat, it's not even a veiled threat, it's more a hope reflecting on a recent situation.

#7 | Posted by THEBULL at 2024-12-17 09:45 PM | Reply

It's not a direct threat, it's not even a veiled threat, it's more a hope reflecting on a recent situation.

#7 | Posted by THEBULL

While true, the GOP have sided with the rich to ensure there are special unwritten laws that apply to protect just the rich.

Welcome to America

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-12-18 10:10 AM | Reply

There is such a thing as jury nullification. One of the reasons that the person that murdered the United Healthcare executive has achieved social media notoriety is because many people have felt abused by the health insurance industry. There will likely be many potential jurors that don't have a high regard for the insurance industry. The prosecutor will have to be vigilant to exclude them from the jury box.

#9 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2024-12-18 04:50 PM | Reply