Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Florida Mom Accused of Luigi Mangione 'Copycat' Threat

Episode Date: December 16, 2024

Briana Boston has been charged with threatening a mass shooting or act of terrorism after using the words "delay, deny, depose" in a call with her insurance company over a denied claim. The call raised alarms at Blue Cross Blue Shield days after the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York and the arrest of Luigi Mangione for the crime. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy looks at the case in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Get 50% off of confidential background reports at https://www.truthfinder.com/lccrimefix and access information about almost anyone!Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Anthony Rickman https://x.com/arickmanlawCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Delay, deny, depose. Those three words have landed this Florida mom in jail. I'll tell you about Breonna Boston's case and why she's in so much trouble. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy.

Typically, I wouldn't be telling you about a woman getting into it with her insurance company on a phone call over a claim. But what happened in New York on December 4th changed everything. That was when United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot from behind, executed as he walked to an investor conference. Police launched a search for the killer. And five days later, a week ago, they arrested and charged 26-year-old Luigi Mangione with shooting and killing Brian Thompson. Police said shell casings found at the scene

where Thompson was murdered were marked with the words, deny, defend, and depose. Those words are important. They're used by critics of the health insurance industry to discuss practices used by health insurance companies when denying claims for care. Police say they found a document in Mangione's backpack in which he took credit for shooting Thompson, writing, frankly, these parasites had it coming. So what does any of this have to do with a woman named Breonna Boston in Florida? Well, on December 10th, the FBI called the Lakeland Police Department and said Boston had called Blue Cross Blue Shield about a claim that she was denied.

A probable cause, affidavit says, near the end of the call that Boston stated in sum and substance, delay, deny, depose. You people are next. This phrase references an exact phrase used during recent current events regarding the United Healthcare Insurance Company CEO who was shot and killed in Manhattan, New York. Shell casings were recovered at the scene and had the words delay, deny, and depose written on the shell casings. This information was released to the media and became a nationally recognized phrase directed against insurance companies. Now, one of the words differed from the shell casings found at the scene, but you can see why police were concerned, even if one of the words was different, delay versus defend. So the cops went to talk to Breonna Boston, and she acknowledged that she said it and apologized. The affidavit continued. Boston

stated she used those words because it's what's in the news right now. Boston advised that she learned of the phrase because of current events regarding the UnitedHealthcare homicide. Boston stated she did not own any firearms and she was not a danger to anyone. Boston further stated that healthcare companies played games and deserved karma from the world because they are evil. These comments did not help Breonna Boston. She was charged with making threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism.

Law enforcement is, of course, on high alert for threats and so are these insurance companies. I spoke with Brian Thompson's former security officer, Philip Klein, about the concern about threats to executives. And you've seen an uptick since his murder in CEOs, companies wanting protection for their, we were just talking about this, for their CEOs. Yeah, I will tell you, we're 100%. We're not taking any new clients right now because we're at 100%. We became 100% about noon yesterday. Yeah, we are seeing a huge uptick. But what's not helping is twofold again, twofold again.

The first fold is these whack jobs out there that are celebrating his death and targeting other CEOs, I mean, that's out there. That's way far out there. They forget he had a wife. They forget he had two kids. They forget that he had colleagues all around him that are mourning right now. They're upset and they're angry. Second, now we got political officials, AOC chirped in yesterday, which really concerned a lot of us out here that protect political officials. You know, we kind of scratch our heads and say, well, I wonder what how her family would feel if it was her. And so, you know, I think the political discourse in the United States of America is at a fever pitch. We will rate everything on a one to five in our security consult business. And we're at a four around the United States right now. I think it's a matter of

time before a copycat, excuse me, emerges and something else happens to some other executive, whether it be television, whether it be health care, whether it be the grocery store owners, whether it be, you know, we can go down the list. I mean, just go down the list that everybody's affected by. I think a lot of the some of the doors have been open now. And once you go through that door, it's hard to walk back through it. Breonna Boston faces a serious felony charge. I looked her up on Truthfinder.com to see what might come up.

Truthfinder is one of the largest public record search services out there. Breonna Boston's name appears in the search results. But that new criminal charge she faces related to the allegation that she threatened a health insurance company, that's not on there just yet. It's pretty new. There are no other criminal records posted for her either. Truthfinder is great because it will show you current and past addresses, phone numbers, relatives, and social media accounts of the people that you search. One thing that I love about Truthfinder is it will show you sex offenders who live near you. So if you want to try it, I've got a great deal for you. You can get 50% off. Just log on to www.truthfinder.com slash lccrimefix. Log on and start accessing information about almost anyone. Breonna Boston has three children and she cried in court as the judge set her bail at $100,000.

Jail records show she was released and is currently on GPS monitoring and has to check in daily. I want to bring in Anthony Rickman. He is a criminal defense attorney based in Tampa. He is not representing Breonna Boston, but he has been following the case closely. So, Anthony, thanks for coming on. Your first thoughts on the arrest of Breonna Boston for making these alleged threats to the insurance company representative. Well, thank you for having me and looking at what she is charged with and what she is alleged to have done. My first thoughts are really this is an overcharge.

I really feel I'm looking at the facts of the case and looking at what she said to the person on the other line from Blue Cross Blue Shield, ultimately, this doesn't substantiate a criminal charge for making a threat to commit mass shooting or an act of terrorism. At the end of the day, what she said was stupid. What she said was something that she probably shouldn't have said. But in reality, people can say stupid things. People can engage in hyperbole. People can say what they feel without the fear of being prosecuted. And in this particular case, I do not feel that what she did met the statutory requirement we call a true threat. And that's a real actual threat to do violence that can be perceived by the listener as an actual threat to do serious, imminent injury to another person. So she did say when the cops went to talk to her, look, I don't have any firearms. I don't, you know, I'm not looking to hurt anybody. However, I mean, she did use language very similar to what was on the shell casings in

the New York case with Brian Thompson's murder. And, you know, I have to push back on you a little bit and play devil's advocate because she may not have firearms. She may not be somebody who is contemplating homicide. And maybe that's where you're talking about the statute specifically. But she did say, well, there is karma here, karma involved. She took it a step further in some of her comments talking about how there is karma with the insurance industry, et cetera. So, I mean, she did herself zero favors and she's on tape.

There is a recording of this. Yeah, she did herself no favors. And that's why they tell you don't say anything when you're talking to the police, because at the end of the day, her actual belief and her her statement of, hey, I'm not going to do anything. I don't have guns. I didn't intend for this to be taken in the matter. Really doesn't matter when you're looking at what we call a true threat. It is really an analysis on how the person who heard the threat took it. And if that person subjectively took her statement to be a threat to commit an act of unlawful violence. So I see why ultimately the state made the decision to pull the

trigger but at the end of the day i don't believe the circumstances will be ultimately convicted because when we talk about this case we know she's talking to some person who most like she doesn't know she's never met she's never seen that person we don't know if the call taker is in this state of florida in the united states of america at all And at the end of the day, for that person on the other end to believe that these three words, coupled with you people are next, is an actual threat of violence. And we talk about those three words if it wasn't for this horrific assassination of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. At the end of the day, no one is justifying, at least no one consciously should think

that that's a good idea. Individual anti-justice in this country, for whatever reason, is criminal. And this person, if there is evidence against Louise Manion, which it appears there is, he's going to get prosecuted to the fullest. But those words, delay, deny, depose, those are words that have really been used

to describe the healthcare industry as a whole and what they do. People are upset with the healthcare industry. They whole and what they do. People are upset with the healthcare industry. They delay the claim. They deny the claim. And then they do whatever they can to get rid of that claim, dispose of the claim. So her statement's taken in a vacuum. I think she can say what she says. But at the end of the day, the question is, is what she said criminal? Here, she doesn't threaten to actually shoot anybody. And that's part of the statute. She doesn't say, I'm going to kill you. She says, you people are next and karma.

Karma comes in different ways. Karma comes around. And for her in her defense, what she's going to say is that this wasn't a threat. This was me saying something I shouldn't have said. She admits that she shouldn't have said it. It was hyperbole. It was a joke. And really, it can't be criminalized. We don't criminalize speech unless there's a real possibility that violence is going to follow. And in this case, she's going to argue that there was no possibility. I just said something that I shouldn't have said. Well, it wasn't a joke. I mean, I don't she wasn't joking, but she she wasn't joking. But I mean, it sounds like she probably needs to hire you to handle this case. I mean, we talked before we because she's I mean, you do make a compelling argument, but she wasn't joking.

I mean, she was mad and we haven't heard the recording yet. You before we started talking for the interview, you said, you know, this is a probable cause arrest. And that's where we stand at this point. It will now get kicked over to the state attorney's office for them to review this to see whether they're going to take it to the grand jury, whether they're going to carry through with this, you know, thing, this mass shooting slash terrorism charge, et cetera. So if you're the defense attorney in this case, do you go to the state attorney and do you try to work this out in some respect or what do you do? So in these cases, just because the arrest is made, the state's going to review and make a filing decision. In my experience, the first thing I do and the most important thing is to get to a prosecutor, talk to them about the facts of the case and how the facts relate to the law.

And in 2023, there was a Supreme Court case that came out that really prosecutor talk to him about the facts of the case and how the facts relate to the law and in 2023 there was a supreme court case that came out that really discussed what has to be proven to establish what we call a true threat because threats are allowed constitutionally under free speech statute but to be a true threat a prosecutable threat you have to show a requisite mental intent of recklessness meaning that you made a statement so reckless that the speaker, the listener had that eminent fear. So the first thing I do when I get these cases, I go to the prosecutor. I go to the state attorney's office. I present them with the law.

We talk about the facts in hopes of getting the state not to file the charges. Look, the message has been sent to this defendant. The message has been sent that crude hyperbole. this isn't a joke. I agree with you. That's not a joke to say what she said, but crude hyperbole, things like that, they are not criminally prohibited. True, real threats are. And my goal to distinguish a true threat versus protected speech. And in this particular case, essentially what she should argue is that, look, basically I sent out a mean tweet. I said things that I shouldn't have said. People go out and they say things on Twitter, on X, out in the media all the time that aren't viewed as true threats that are threatening in nature. And really you have to

establish that eminent act of unlawful violence is going to come as a result of the threat. And the person who heard that threat believed that that violence was eminent. And here, the person who heard that threat, really, we don't even know where this person is. I'm sure if they walked across each other in a mall, they wouldn't even know who they were. And at the end of the day, you know, to prove the crime here, despite what she said, despite the threatening nature of what she said, they have to prove that it's an expression of the intent to commit an act of unlawful violence. And I think there's a distinction in this particular case. But isn't part of this what the person on the other end of the line felt. I work at an insurance company. I see a CEO

of another insurance company gets murdered on the street. And the wording on the shell casings is similar. There was one word that was off, but we know what she was trying to say. And then I kick it up to my supervisor and I'm like, oh my God, this lady is saying she's using those words that the shooter in New York did. And everybody's freaked out. And they're like thinking, oh, my God, this lady is going to come here and you're next. I mean, you're next. I mean, come on.

I mean, that is that would be terrifying. Look, and I'm sure it's not the first time that the person on your end has gotten cursed at, yelled at, or threatened by somebody who's not happy with the way their claim was handled. And I think you're right. In this world we live in right now, in the context of what happened to the CEO, in the context of all the animosity towards the healthcare industry, I get why this person reported it. I get why they reported it to the FBI. But in a purely legal context, was wrong for what she said. I don't think anyone would disagree with you that especially considering the time we're in,

knowing that this father, this husband, this man was assassinated walking down the street. No one would disagree that what she said was completely wrong. The question is, can she legally say it? But the protections we have in this country are the First Amendment. Well, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. I mean, they've basically said that. I mean, you can't do that. And they may think this is kind of

what she did. But we're just going to have to see where the case goes from here. I do want to make it clear I've reached out to Breonna Boston's attorney. And at the time of this recording, he has not responded to my email or my phone call. So Anthony Rickman, thank you so much for coming on. I appreciate it. Thank you for having me. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ann Janette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.