Should Mateen's wife be charged?

[SwimExpert]

Yes or no?

 

[Ravi]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

 

[SwimExpert]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

Define "knew about it."

 

[Clementine]

If she was aware that he was planning something or assisted in any way to help him prepare, then yes, she is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. I haven't heard evidence that she knew anything so, until more is known, can't answer yes or no.

 

[SwimExpert]

If she was aware that he was planning something or assisted in any way to help him prepare, then yes, she is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. I haven't heard evidence that she knew anything so, until more is known, can't answer yes or no.

"Aware." "Something." "Planning." These are inherently vague. For example...

Mateen: One day, I'm going to give those fags what they deserve. I'm serious. I'm going to do it.

Saying this to his wife means that the wife was "aware" that he was "planning" "something."

 

[OldLady]

According to the news last night, she admitted she knew what he was planning and said she "tried to talk him out of it." She was with him on a shopping run for ammunition and she drove him to Pulse to "case" the place. She freely admits she knew and that she did not report him.
What I am wondering is if she will use the battered victim defense, saying she feared for her life if she reported him. Now, normally, I would say that's a pretty weak excuse, but considering that the FBI had him under investigation TWICE during the time she was married to him and that they found nothing, she might well have wondered what good it would do. Even if she waited to call the cops after he left for Pulse that night, what would they do? He legally owned the guns. He would deny he was doing anything evil. The FBI would then, presumably, walk away the way they have before, and THEN he would beat the ever living shit out of her.
I kind of get it, but I think she should be arrested and put in prison for life. And that Mateen's father NOT be given the three year old. If I had been in her place, I would have found a way to notify the police. I'm no hero, but I would have.

 

[Ravi]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

Define "knew about it."

She is reported to have told the police that he told her he was planning the attack. That would be "knowing" about it.

 

[dani67]

yes.at least 20 years

 

[WillowTree]

Absolutely. She should never see the light of day.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Yes or no?

No, why waste US taxpayer money?

SHe should be stripped of her citizenship and shipped to Syria. She supports ISIS, let her be with ISIS.

Problem solved.

 

[Correll]

If she was aware that he was planning something or assisted in any way to help him prepare, then yes, she is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. I haven't heard evidence that she knew anything so, until more is known, can't answer yes or no.

"Aware." "Something." "Planning." These are inherently vague. For example...

Mateen: One day, I'm going to give those fags what they deserve. I'm serious. I'm going to do it.

Saying this to his wife means that the wife was "aware" that he was "planning" "something."

Just saying,

Your scenario could just be a blowhard, spouting off.


AND,

my understanding is that such bullshit is common in at least some Muslim cultures.

But it sounds like she has firmer knowledge than that anyways, so Moot.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

Define "knew about it."

She is reported to have told the police that he told her he was planning the attack. That would be "knowing" about it.

There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether knowing someone is going to commit a crime and not reporting it is itself a crime. If it turns out that that is in fact NOT a crime, I think we would all agree that we need a new law.

 

[SwimExpert]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

Define "knew about it."

She is reported to have told the police that he told her he was planning the attack. That would be "knowing" about it.

He was planning the attack? Or did she know he was saying he would do perform some kind of attack? Can anyone, even herself, really say that she was sure he would actually carry anything out? Did Mateen leave the house that evening saying "Hey babe, I'm gonna go shoot up the gay club. I'll see you later"? Husbands and wives have all kinds of conversations about each other's darkest and most disturbing qualities. There are all kinds of people who will tell you that their spouse is the person who keeps them in line. They've spent years telling their spouse they're going to go walk out the door and do something violent, but the spouse keeps them in check because it's the only person who can get through to them. And they go their entire lives never actually making good of any of the things they've said they were planning to do.

Maybe she was trying to be a good wife. Maybe she didn't want to let her husband go off on his own because she knew he needed someone to keep him in line. Maybe she was foolish to not recognize that her husband had serious anger issues and probably needed some professional counseling. Maybe she had blinders on and couldn't see how bad the situation was because she didn't want to believe it. After all, who wants to believe that their own spouse is such a monster? Maybe she heard him say this stuff all the time but thought he was just overly dramatic and had no idea how serious he was.

See, the problem here is that at the end of the day we're talking about prosecuting someone simply for being aware of another person's evilness. If I know that Becky down the street is selling drugs, does that make me a criminal for not snitching on her? If Becky dies of an OD, does that make me guilty over her death, because I never tried to get her to go into rehab?

 

[SwimExpert]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

Define "knew about it."

She is reported to have told the police that he told her he was planning the attack. That would be "knowing" about it.

There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether knowing someone is going to commit a crime and not reporting it is itself a crime. If it turns out that that is in fact NOT a crime, I think we would all agree that we need a new law.

So you believe that every person should be legally required to become an active agent of the state, reporting all knowledge, suspicion, or anticipations of possible future criminal activity?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

Define "knew about it."

She is reported to have told the police that he told her he was planning the attack. That would be "knowing" about it.

He was planning the attack? Or did she know he was saying he would do perform some kind of attack? Can anyone, even herself, really say that she was sure he would actually carry anything out? Did Mateen leave the house that evening saying "Hey babe, I'm gonna go shoot up the gay club. I'll see you later"? Husbands and wives have all kinds of conversations about each other's darkest and most disturbing qualities. There are all kinds of people who will tell you that their spouse is the person who keeps them in line. They've spent years telling their spouse they're going to go walk out the door and do something violent, but the spouse keeps them in check because it's the only person who can get through to them. And they go their entire lives never actually making good of any of the things they've said they were planning to do.

Maybe she was trying to be a good wife. Maybe she didn't want to let her husband go off on his own because she knew he needed someone to keep him in line. Maybe she was foolish to not recognize that her husband had serious anger issues and probably needed some professional counseling. Maybe she had blinders on and couldn't see how bad the situation was because she didn't want to believe it. After all, who wants to believe that their own spouse is such a monster? Maybe she heard him say this stuff all the time but thought he was just overly dramatic and had no idea how serious he was.

See, the problem here is that at the end of the day we're talking about prosecuting someone simply for being aware of another person's evilness. If I know that Becky down the street is selling drugs, does that make me a criminal for not snitching on her? If Becky dies of an OD, does that make me guilty over her death, because I never tried to get her to go into rehab?

Reports , and that's all they are at this point, are that she SPECIFICALLY knew his target and that he was on his way to do it. Not just that she knew that at some point he planned on shooting the place up, but reports are that she knew he was headed out the door at that time to do it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

Define "knew about it."

She is reported to have told the police that he told her he was planning the attack. That would be "knowing" about it.

There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether knowing someone is going to commit a crime and not reporting it is itself a crime. If it turns out that that is in fact NOT a crime, I think we would all agree that we need a new law.

So you believe that every person should be legally required to become an active agent of the state, reporting all knowledge, suspicion, or anticipations of possible future criminal activity?

Absolutely.

 

[Ravi]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

Define "knew about it."

She is reported to have told the police that he told her he was planning the attack. That would be "knowing" about it.

He was planning the attack? Or did she know he was saying he would do perform some kind of attack? Can anyone, even herself, really say that she was sure he would actually carry anything out? Did Mateen leave the house that evening saying "Hey babe, I'm gonna go shoot up the gay club. I'll see you later"? Husbands and wives have all kinds of conversations about each other's darkest and most disturbing qualities. There are all kinds of people who will tell you that their spouse is the person who keeps them in line. They've spent years telling their spouse they're going to go walk out the door and do something violent, but the spouse keeps them in check because it's the only person who can get through to them. And they go their entire lives never actually making good of any of the things they've said they were planning to do.

Maybe she was trying to be a good wife. Maybe she didn't want to let her husband go off on his own because she knew he needed someone to keep him in line. Maybe she was foolish to not recognize that her husband had serious anger issues and probably needed some professional counseling. Maybe she had blinders on and couldn't see how bad the situation was because she didn't want to believe it. After all, who wants to believe that their own spouse is such a monster? Maybe she heard him say this stuff all the time but thought he was just overly dramatic and had no idea how serious he was.

See, the problem here is that at the end of the day we're talking about prosecuting someone simply for being aware of another person's evilness. If I know that Becky down the street is selling drugs, does that make me a criminal for not snitching on her? If Becky dies of an OD, does that make me guilty over her death, because I never tried to get her to go into rehab?

I'm going to assume that she knew about her husband being on the watch list. If she knew that and if he continued to talk about making an attack SHE SHOULD HAVE TOLD the FBI.

 

[SwimExpert]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

Define "knew about it."

She is reported to have told the police that he told her he was planning the attack. That would be "knowing" about it.

There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether knowing someone is going to commit a crime and not reporting it is itself a crime. If it turns out that that is in fact NOT a crime, I think we would all agree that we need a new law.

So you believe that every person should be legally required to become an active agent of the state, reporting all knowledge, suspicion, or anticipations of possible future criminal activity?

Absolutely.

Well, now that we've established that you believe in an all powerful government let's look at the unintended consequences. If all people are now government agents obligated to report any and all knowledge, suspicion, or anticipations of possible future criminal activity, there is no more privacy. There is no right to silence. But there is also no usable evidence anymore. Meanwhile, the police will become infinitely overburdened with frivolous reports of generally benign activity and half cocked hypotheses.

If I'm required to be a government agent, then any evidence I collect and subsequently report to the authorities must be consistent with the 4th amendment. If I go to someone's house and observe evidence of a murder, I can report it to police. But I didn't have a warrant. As a government agent I need a warrant. So the evidence is inadmissible.

We all will now have to report every observed instance where we believe someone is speeding. That's a crime. We have a duty to report, and failure to report would be criminal.

And since suspicion and hypotheses must now be reported, police will be quite tied up fielding every half baked theory anyone comes up with. They're going to report them, because if they don't they risk being a criminal. But there's literally a limitless amount of suspicion and speculation of future events that can be had. With over 315 million people in this country, there will be a whole lot of daily calls. It will become too burdensome to bother following up on it all anyway.

If I am driving and witness an accident, and I see one person step out of his vehicle with an angry look and a gun in his hand, I will instantly be aware that he is probably about to commit a crime. Before he even does anything I have a legal obligation to report to the police. I have knowledge, even if I never wanted that knowledge. If he sees me, and I realize that he and I know each other, and then he shoots someone and speeds off, I have an obligation to report it to the police. Nevermind that I'm now afraid for my life and my family's life that he might try to retaliate. I'd rather keep quiet. But I'm a criminal if I do. So I tell the police what I saw, and a few days later my wife and children are killed.

Congratulations. You've made a real mess of things.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm going to assume that she knew about her husband being on the watch list.

That's an unfounded assumption. How is she supposed to know? It's exactly advertised.

If she knew that and if he continued to talk about making an attack SHE SHOULD HAVE TOLD the FBI.

Even if we accept your assumption, should have is insufficient to justify prosecution. Maybe I should have called the police when I saw a woman beating her child in the grocery store. But creating criminal actions out of should have is not the markings of a free society, nor a functional society. If we open the door to criminalizing knowledge and inaction, or a failure to thwart another person's future actions, everyone becomes criminal before long.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If she knew about it and kept quite, absolutely. Ditto if she helped.

I second this.

God bless you always!!!

Holly