Should Mateen's wife be charged?

[Clementine]

You ignored most of my post where I focused on the need for proof before charging anyone. Pretty selective on your part to focus on one thing.

It's not that I'm ignoring it. But I am trying to focus on a particular component to this whole thing that I think needs to be highlighted. About 99.9% of all reaction to this incident, as tends to be the case with similar incidents, reaches into deep, dark places. In our hindsight we cast some severe, retrospective demands. For example, "knowing someone well enough to know if they're blowing off steam or they are serious" seems fine and dandy. But really, it's a demand for perfection. Maybe she didn't know him well enough. Maybe she thought she did. Maybe she was mistaken in thinking he was blowing off steam. Maybe she really didn't know how serious he was. Maybe her own bias interfered with her judgement.

Bad things happen all the time, done by seemingly good people, shocking everyone who knows the guilty party. How many times have we seen the "Friends and Family Stunned Shooter Had A Dark Side" headlines over the years? It's so common it's cliche. But the Orlando incident is about 1) Muslims, 2) Gay people, 3) Guns. It's a perfect storm, hitting all of the most emotionally charged raw nerves. The public's reactionarism is thrice as dangerous as if it was only one of the above. And it's thrice as irrational.

My point was that there has to be proof and, if she did know something, she may have told a friend. Without a witness saying she knew something or her saying so, no way to tell.

Women have lived with men who were murderers, rapists and some that beat or even sexually abused their children and turns out many knew, or at least suspected, but were in denial or just would never turn against their own husband no matter what. It happens. Some women are subservient and this is particularly true of many Muslim women. Some might follow orders without being told anything about why.

The big question is whether she helped him in any way to plan the attack or whether she had knowledge of an impending attack. All is hard to prove, though a lack of evidence never stopped a zealous prosecutor. Most cases are circumstantial because hard evidence is rare.

Perhaps if they question her, they can discover whether she was kept in the dark or not.

I just don't want to jump to conclusions because that never helps anything. As I said, if she knew anything, she'd have to admit it or a friend she confided in would have to come forth.

Buying ammunition is perfectly legal, so I don't see that as a red flag. The investigation is still underway, so no point in speculating and best to wait.

I am getting tired of people pointing fingers because a guy who was once investigated managed to get a gun. Being investigated doesn't mean anything unless the investigation leads to an arrest and conviction. Just being investigated would not prevent someone from buying a gun in the future. My problem with the investigation is the reason it ended. They dropped it after taking his word that his coworkers were unfairly picking on him because he was Muslim.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Lol, you are the one being emotional. It would be aiding the child's interest.

Yes, that's it. I'm making an argument based on logic. You are, quite literally, arguing "But think of the children!" Therefore, I'm the one being emotional.

You brought up an example of a child being beaten. Now you are crying about your own analogy.

 

[Two Thumbs]

not just charged b/c people want someone to arrest

And THAT is what we're primarily seeing. People are mad and angry and afraid, and they want someone to blame. Raw, emotional, reactionarism.

public opinion is the new lynch mob.

A protected group or member of it is harmed, someone must be a bigot and must go to prison.

facts be damned.

 

[Ravi]

not just charged b/c people want someone to arrest

And THAT is what we're primarily seeing. People are mad and angry and afraid, and they want someone to blame. Raw, emotional, reactionarism.

public opinion is the new lynch mob.

A protected group or member of it is harmed, someone must be a bigot and must go to prison.

facts be damned.

Are you saying that if this woman is complicit she should face no consequences because the victims were gay?

 

[Two Thumbs]

not just charged b/c people want someone to arrest

And THAT is what we're primarily seeing. People are mad and angry and afraid, and they want someone to blame. Raw, emotional, reactionarism.

public opinion is the new lynch mob.

A protected group or member of it is harmed, someone must be a bigot and must go to prison.

facts be damned.

Are you saying that if this woman is complicit she should face no consequences because the victims were gay?

How the fuck did you come up with that?


If there's no, or not enough evidence to arrest, she will get a pass, b/c she's protected, she's in one of the medias protected groups.
If someone pushes for her to be arrested on little evidence, that person will be vilified by the left and the media.


gays are learning, or have the chance to learn, that the left and he dnc really don't give a fuck about them. If yall did, you'd put the blame where it belongs and do something about it.

but you can't, b/c it's a protected group killing members of another protected group, so you have to place the blame elsewhere.

 

[Dene Nolan]

Yes, she should be charged with aiding and abetting.

 

[Claudette]

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

I agree. If she knew and said nothing then she's just as guilty as that asshole is.

 

[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.

Lol, you are the one being emotional. It would be aiding the child's interest.

Yes, that's it. I'm making an argument based on logic. You are, quite literally, arguing "But think of the children!" Therefore, I'm the one being emotional.

You brought up an example of a child being beaten. Now you are crying about your own analogy.

I've created a logical analogy. You are making an emotional appeal.

 

[Ravi]

not just charged b/c people want someone to arrest

And THAT is what we're primarily seeing. People are mad and angry and afraid, and they want someone to blame. Raw, emotional, reactionarism.

public opinion is the new lynch mob.

A protected group or member of it is harmed, someone must be a bigot and must go to prison.

facts be damned.

Are you saying that if this woman is complicit she should face no consequences because the victims were gay?

How the fuck did you come up with that?


If there's no, or not enough evidence to arrest, she will get a pass, b/c she's protected, she's in one of the medias protected groups.
If someone pushes for her to be arrested on little evidence, that person will be vilified by the left and the media.


gays are learning, or have the chance to learn, that the left and he dnc really don't give a fuck about them. If yall did, you'd put the blame where it belongs and do something about it.

but you can't, b/c it's a protected group killing members of another protected group, so you have to place the blame elsewhere.

Idiot. You consider me the left and I say if she had knowledge she should be charged.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Lol, you are the one being emotional. It would be aiding the child's interest.

Yes, that's it. I'm making an argument based on logic. You are, quite literally, arguing "But think of the children!" Therefore, I'm the one being emotional.

You brought up an example of a child being beaten. Now you are crying about your own analogy.

I've created a logical analogy. You are making an emotional appeal.

If you see someone committing a felony or have knowledge that they are going to do so you should report it and if you don't you are complicit in the crime.

 

[Valerie]

public opinion is the new lynch mob.

A protected group or member of it is harmed, someone must be a bigot and must go to prison.

facts be damned.

what FACTS..??

you think the grand jury is basing their investigation on PUBLIC OPINION?

of course you'd like to THINK that cuz it fits all your fantasia talking points.





What did the wife know?

Salman, Mateen's second wife, has been cooperating with various law enforcement agencies.

Salman told investigators that Mateen told her he had interest in carrying out a jihadist attack -- but she denied knowing of any specific plans, according to two law enforcement officials.

She initially denied that when Mateen left the house Saturday that she had any idea he was going to do something violent.

But in subsequent statements, Salman conceded she had a suspicion he might be planning an attack, perhaps on Pulse, the officials said. According to one official, she knew "for a while" Mateen had thoughts of wanting to do something violent. He had been talking about it for months, if not years.

According to the second official, Salman told investigators that on Saturday she said she tried to tell him not to commit violence. But she didn't call police.

Sources: Grand jury to investigate Orlando shooter's widow - CNN.com

 

[Valerie]

to rethuglicans, grand jury investigations are now "political correctness" run amok


woof woof

 

[Two Thumbs]

not just charged b/c people want someone to arrest

And THAT is what we're primarily seeing. People are mad and angry and afraid, and they want someone to blame. Raw, emotional, reactionarism.

public opinion is the new lynch mob.

A protected group or member of it is harmed, someone must be a bigot and must go to prison.

facts be damned.

Are you saying that if this woman is complicit she should face no consequences because the victims were gay?

How the fuck did you come up with that?


If there's no, or not enough evidence to arrest, she will get a pass, b/c she's protected, she's in one of the medias protected groups.
If someone pushes for her to be arrested on little evidence, that person will be vilified by the left and the media.


gays are learning, or have the chance to learn, that the left and he dnc really don't give a fuck about them. If yall did, you'd put the blame where it belongs and do something about it.

but you can't, b/c it's a protected group killing members of another protected group, so you have to place the blame elsewhere.

Idiot. You consider me the left and I say if she had knowledge she should be charged.

English is your first language, so your confusion is b/c you're stewpud.


I never said she shouldn't be charged, I said she should be investigated.

If there's evidence enough, she should be charged.

BUT

since she's in 3 of the lefts victim classes (female, brown and muslim) she won't be unless there's a LOT of evidence.

your leaders, your media, will protect her, at all cost.

Proof?

They blamed the nra, christians, cons, the gop, etc, etc trump.

everyone but him, and the fact he's a muslim nutbar.

you will not see justice.

 

[Two Thumbs]

public opinion is the new lynch mob.

A protected group or member of it is harmed, someone must be a bigot and must go to prison.

facts be damned.

what FACTS..??

you think the grand jury is basing their investigation on PUBLIC OPINION?

of course you'd like to THINK that cuz it fits all your fantasia talking points.





What did the wife know?

Salman, Mateen's second wife, has been cooperating with various law enforcement agencies.

Salman told investigators that Mateen told her he had interest in carrying out a jihadist attack -- but she denied knowing of any specific plans, according to two law enforcement officials.

She initially denied that when Mateen left the house Saturday that she had any idea he was going to do something violent.

But in subsequent statements, Salman conceded she had a suspicion he might be planning an attack, perhaps on Pulse, the officials said. According to one official, she knew "for a while" Mateen had thoughts of wanting to do something violent. He had been talking about it for months, if not years.

According to the second official, Salman told investigators that on Saturday she said she tried to tell him not to commit violence. But she didn't call police.

Sources: Grand jury to investigate Orlando shooter's widow - CNN.com

you morons pushed and got zimmerman arrestes
you got the officers in freddy grey arrested

everyone has been proven innocent.


now go fuck yourself with a rusty tire iron, you're to fucking dumb to talk with me

 

[Valerie]

innocent until proven guilty is kind of an important standard in American juris prudence.

even for the brown people..the female people..and the muslim people. derrp

American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts, 3d | Legal Solutions

 

[Valerie]

now go fuck yourself with a rusty tire iron, you're to fucking dumb to talk with me

you poor thing

 

[Ravi]

And THAT is what we're primarily seeing. People are mad and angry and afraid, and they want someone to blame. Raw, emotional, reactionarism.

public opinion is the new lynch mob.

A protected group or member of it is harmed, someone must be a bigot and must go to prison.

facts be damned.

Are you saying that if this woman is complicit she should face no consequences because the victims were gay?

How the fuck did you come up with that?


If there's no, or not enough evidence to arrest, she will get a pass, b/c she's protected, she's in one of the medias protected groups.
If someone pushes for her to be arrested on little evidence, that person will be vilified by the left and the media.


gays are learning, or have the chance to learn, that the left and he dnc really don't give a fuck about them. If yall did, you'd put the blame where it belongs and do something about it.

but you can't, b/c it's a protected group killing members of another protected group, so you have to place the blame elsewhere.

Idiot. You consider me the left and I say if she had knowledge she should be charged.

English is your first language, so your confusion is b/c you're stewpud.


I never said she shouldn't be charged, I said she should be investigated.

If there's evidence enough, she should be charged.

BUT

since she's in 3 of the lefts victim classes (female, brown and muslim) she won't be unless there's a LOT of evidence.

your leaders, your media, will protect her, at all cost.

Proof?

They blamed the nra, christians, cons, the gop, etc, etc trump.

everyone but him, and the fact he's a muslim nutbar.

you will not see justice.

You are a fool. I had forgotten that.

 

[OldLady]

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.

On Kelly a day or two ago, she said there is a federal law that would allow them to arrest her for knowing but not reporting that he was about to commit the crime. There are not state laws in place that would cover that, however.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

public opinion is the new lynch mob.

A protected group or member of it is harmed, someone must be a bigot and must go to prison.

facts be damned.

Are you saying that if this woman is complicit she should face no consequences because the victims were gay?

How the fuck did you come up with that?


If there's no, or not enough evidence to arrest, she will get a pass, b/c she's protected, she's in one of the medias protected groups.
If someone pushes for her to be arrested on little evidence, that person will be vilified by the left and the media.


gays are learning, or have the chance to learn, that the left and he dnc really don't give a fuck about them. If yall did, you'd put the blame where it belongs and do something about it.

but you can't, b/c it's a protected group killing members of another protected group, so you have to place the blame elsewhere.

Idiot. You consider me the left and I say if she had knowledge she should be charged.

English is your first language, so your confusion is b/c you're stewpud.


I never said she shouldn't be charged, I said she should be investigated.

If there's evidence enough, she should be charged.

BUT

since she's in 3 of the lefts victim classes (female, brown and muslim) she won't be unless there's a LOT of evidence.

your leaders, your media, will protect her, at all cost.

Proof?

They blamed the nra, christians, cons, the gop, etc, etc trump.

everyone but him, and the fact he's a muslim nutbar.

you will not see justice.

You are a fool. I had forgotten that.

He may be a fool, but this dumb bitch belongs in prison. Everyone of us KNOW she knew what the fuck was going on. Your spouse talks about killing a bunch of people and then goes and buys guns and tons of ammo, yeah you KNOW something is up.

 

[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.

On Kelly a day or two ago, she said there is a federal law that would allow them to arrest her for knowing but not reporting that he was about to commit the crime. There are not state laws in place that would cover that, however.

Yeah, that one guest of hers said that, but other lawyers have said it is not illegal. So that is up in the air right now as far as I'm concerned.

I think we , mostly , all agree that it should be illegal though.