Should Mateen's wife be charged?

[Katzndogz]

If she just knew, no. If she did anything to help him, anything at all, she needs to be arrested and tried just like him.

 

[Ravi]

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.

The FBI would have questioned the wife during their investigations of him.

 

[Ravi]

And yeah, if you saw someone beating a child you should report it. The child's rights, like the club attendees rights, are much more important than the perp's.

 

[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.

The FBI would have questioned the wife during their investigations of him.

Not necessarily. And even if they did, being questioned by the FBI does not automatically mean that someone is on the terrorist watch list. I've been questioned by the FBI before. Should I assume that I ever was, or am now, on the terrorist watch list?

 

[SwimExpert]

And yeah, if you saw someone beating a child you should report it. The child's rights, like the club attendees rights, are much more important than the perp's.

And I should be prosecuted if I don't report it?

 

[Picaro]

Yes or no?

Yes.

 

[Picaro]

And yeah, if you saw someone beating a child you should report it. The child's rights, like the club attendees rights, are much more important than the perp's.

And I should be prosecuted if I don't report it?

Yes.

 

[Ravi]

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.

The FBI would have questioned the wife during their investigations of him.

Not necessarily. And even if they did, being questioned by the FBI does not automatically mean that someone is on the terrorist watch list. I've been questioned by the FBI before. Should I assume that I ever was, or am now, on the terrorist watch list?

You were probably question for a security clearance or a relative's security clearance and you knew why you were being questioned.

You are acting like a retard. The FBI would ask pointed questions if they were investigating ties to terrorism. Unless the wife is a dumb as you she would have known which way the wind was blowing.

 

[Ravi]

And yeah, if you saw someone beating a child you should report it. The child's rights, like the club attendees rights, are much more important than the perp's.

And I should be prosecuted if I don't report it?

For not reporting a felony? You should be charged and allowed to mount your defense. Ditto with this woman.

 

[SwimExpert]

And yeah, if you saw someone beating a child you should report it. The child's rights, like the club attendees rights, are much more important than the perp's.

And I should be prosecuted if I don't report it?

For not reporting a felony? You should be charged and allowed to mount your defense. Ditto with this woman.

Charged with.....not reporting a felony? Or charged with minding my own business? Since when don't I have the right to go about my business as I see fit, and to not be forced to work for the government? This is no different then the FBI wanting to compel Apple to do its work for it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

No one said you are required to gather evidence stupid.

Also, no one said you had to act as a government agent.

Likewise , no one suggested you have to report suspicions.

We're talking about KNOWING a crime is about to take place and doing nothing.

Buying an assault weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition
casing out several areas for attack
telling your wife and child you love them and goodbye
posting your allegiance to ISIS on social media

Those are all things a reasonable spouse would say "hmm i think he's going to commit a crime"
But then when he actually says "I'm going to go kill a bunch of fags now, bye"

Yeah that pretty much cements it. That is no longer suspicion.

 

[Ravi]

And yeah, if you saw someone beating a child you should report it. The child's rights, like the club attendees rights, are much more important than the perp's.

And I should be prosecuted if I don't report it?

For not reporting a felony? You should be charged and allowed to mount your defense. Ditto with this woman.

Charged with.....not reporting a felony? Or charged with minding my own business? Since when don't I have the right to go about my business as I see fit, and to not be forced to work for the government? This is no different then the FBI wanting to compel Apple to do its work for it.

You wouldn't be working for the government. You'd be helping a defenseless child. Charged with knowingly concealing a crime.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

what a fucking moron

"you mean if I'm walking down the street and I see a guy open fire on a crowd I should call 911? Fuck that , I'm not a snitch or a government agent"

 

[SwimExpert]

You were probably question for a security clearance or a relative's security clearance and you knew why you were being questioned.

You are acting like a retard. The FBI would ask pointed questions if they were investigating ties to terrorism. Unless the wife is a dumb as you she would have known which way the wind was blowing.

You're right about one thing, pretty much any idiot will know why they are being questioned before long, regardless of the circumstances. But that is irrelevant. Being questioned by the FBI, even if it's about terrorism, does not automatically mean that someone is on the terrorism watch list. Everything you are saying is "should have known" this and "should have known" that, and "government deserves to know whatever you know." Ultimately, your entire position boils down to a desire for omniscience.

 

[SwimExpert]

You wouldn't be working for the government. You'd be helping a defenseless child. Charged with knowingly concealing a crime.

If it's required that I do something to aid a government interest, then I am working on behalf of the government. Your emotional arguments will not change that fact.

 

[SwimExpert]

No one said you are required to gather evidence stupid.

If I see something that suggests a crime, then I have gathered evidence, whether I wanted to or not.

Also, no one said you had to act as a government agent.

Likewise , no one suggested you have to report suspicions.

Actually, you have.

We're talking about KNOWING a crime is about to take place and doing nothing.

How can someone "know" a crime is about to take place. I mean really, truly "know"? Unless you can see the future then everything is a suspicion. Some may even be very good suspicions.

If I point a gun at someone and say that I'm going to shoot them, that gives them a very good suspicion that I will shoot them. But if I never do, the act has never happened. Nobody can truly "know" until it happens.

So where do you draw the line? At what point does it become enough to say that someone really, actually "knew" that a crime was going to happen?

Buying an assault weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition

If you're talking about Mateen, he didn't buy an assault weapon. He bought a run of the mill sporting rifle. And "hundreds of rounds of ammunition" can easily be an afternoon at the range.

I'm going to stop reading here, because you've very clearly shown at this point that your position is 100% emotional and reactionary, and entirely negligent of any logical thought. Something bad happened. You're upset about it. You wish it hadn't happened. Aren't we all? But you're going to need to cope with the fact that it did happen. Emotions and anger after the fact aren't going to accomplish anything. It won't undo the past, and it won't solve anything for the future.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You wouldn't be working for the government. You'd be helping a defenseless child. Charged with knowingly concealing a crime.

If it's required that I do something to aid a government interest, then I am working on behalf of the government. Your emotional arguments will not change that fact.

Preventing the death of 50 fucking people isn't a governmental interest you buffoon, it's a humane one.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No one said you are required to gather evidence stupid.

If I see something that suggests a crime, then I have gathered evidence, whether I wanted to or not.

Also, no one said you had to act as a government agent.

Likewise , no one suggested you have to report suspicions.

Actually, you have.

We're talking about KNOWING a crime is about to take place and doing nothing.

How can someone "know" a crime is about to take place. I mean really, truly "know"? Unless you can see the future then everything is a suspicion. Some may even be very good suspicions.

If I point a gun at someone and say that I'm going to shoot them, that gives them a very good suspicion that I will shoot them. But if I never do, the act has never happened. Nobody can truly "know" until it happens.

So where do you draw the line? At what point does it become enough to say that someone really, actually "knew" that a crime was going to happen?

Buying an assault weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition

If you're talking about Mateen, he didn't buy an assault weapon. He bought a run of the mill sporting rifle. And "hundreds of rounds of ammunition" can easily be an afternoon at the range.

I'm going to stop reading here, because you've very clearly shown at this point that your position is 100% emotional and reactionary, and entirely negligent of any logical thought. Something bad happened. You're upset about it. You wish it hadn't happened. Aren't we all? But you're going to need to cope with the fact that it did happen. Emotions and anger after the fact aren't going to accomplish anything. It won't undo the past, and it won't solve anything for the future.

He bought an assault weapon you moron.


Words have meanings. He bought an ASSAULT WEAPON. he did not buy an ASSAULT RIFLE, those are two different things.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes or no?

YES!

She knew what he was planning to do, and failed to warn anyone.

 

[Ravi]

You were probably question for a security clearance or a relative's security clearance and you knew why you were being questioned.

You are acting like a retard. The FBI would ask pointed questions if they were investigating ties to terrorism. Unless the wife is a dumb as you she would have known which way the wind was blowing.

You're right about one thing, pretty much any idiot will know why they are being questioned before long, regardless of the circumstances. But that is irrelevant. Being questioned by the FBI, even if it's about terrorism, does not automatically mean that someone is on the terrorism watch list. Everything you are saying is "should have known" this and "should have known" that, and "government deserves to know whatever you know." Ultimately, your entire position boils down to a desire for omniscience.

Why do you suppose the FBI would ask someone questions about ties to terrorism? I didn't say the government deserves to know whatever you know.