• Showroom7561
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Right, so not what you said originally, which is that she meant something else and the sheriff who ordered her arrest was just jumping to conclusions, a conclusion you now agree with.

    That could still be true, though. That’s the thing… you can’t make assumptions about other people’s intentions, even if the context seems to point one way in hindsight.

    From the article: “She reportedly said she used the phrase “because it’s what is in the news right now.””

    She may not have even known the full extent of the context, like someone repeating a meme without knowing the origin story.

    The officers interpreted what she said as an actual threat of violence, which is completely outrageous.

    After being charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, a judge set Boston’s bond at $100,000.

    The judge made a HUGE FUCKING LEAP here! She had neither the means nor the intent to “conduct a mass shooting”, any more than if she claimed she would “nuke” their building.

    This judge is either being paid by the insurance company, or is acting in poor faith.

    Unfortunately, the police are an institution that historically have been put in place by the 1% to protect their interests, and there is a long-standing legal ruling that the police are not there to “protect and serve” (the common citizen).

    I couldn’t agree more, especially as it’s applied to this story.