Orlando shooter's current wife reportedly had knowledge of his intent...

[63splitwindow]

" Orlando shooter Omar Mateen may have targeted Disney World as a potential site of attack, according to media reports.

People cites a federal law enforcement source who says the deceased shooter and his wife Noor Zahi Salman visited Orlando’s Walt Disney World in April.

Salman told law enforcement on Sunday, hours after the attack at Pulse, that Mateen had recently scouted both the nightclub and Downtown Disney as potential attack targets."

http://www.thewrap.com/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen-disney-world/

If true her prosecution should be for 50 counts of first degree murder, among other charges.

[vdogg]

1. And she's not in jail because?

It's baffling how she could know all this and say nothing. At a minimum, this is providing material support to terrorists.

[Yo_Mama]

65. IF - don't assume that in her interviews she told them that she knew.

In retrospect, she may be describing behavior that law enforcement may now assume, with hindsight, was casing other potential attack sites.

If my husband said "Let's take the kid to Disneyworld," even if his behavior when we were there struck me as odd, the last thing I would assume would be that he meant to shoot it up. Most Muslims would have the same baseline assumption.

Just because she is describing behavior that indicates this to the investigating officers doesn't mean that she knew before the shooting.

[LoverOfLiberty]

100. This is a pretty serious charge to lob

I would hope and expect that there is some verification of the truth before tossing her in jail.

[vdogg]

107. From the FBI

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/omar-mateen-s-wife-tried-talk-him-out-orlando-attack-n592051

Tried to talk him out of it, but FAILED to report him when she couldn't. She could've saved lives. This makes her an accessory.

[MariaThinks]

101. because the meme that he acted alone without any community knowledge would no longer hold

[6chars]

2. Widow, I think, not current wife

[JonathanRackham]

4. Did he have a current wife and ex-wife?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/sitora-yusufiy-omar-mateen-orlando-shooting.html?_r=0

[Blue_Adept]

28. Yes

He has an ex-wife who escaped his clutches a few years back and has talked about how abusive he was.

He has a child with his current wife, said child being 3 1/2 years old.

[63splitwindow]

5. True...

meant to distinguish her from ex-wife he abused and who has been seen talking to the press.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. The ex wife that apparently didn't report his domestic violence to the police.

This whole fucking mess is just getting more and more frustrating as the minutes tick by.

[Blue_Adept]

30. Because we know how seriously the police often treat domestic violence

Probably about on par with how they treat rape kits

[Silver_Witch]

37. Exactly....

Oh my Unicorn ...how frustrated I am about this whole thing.

[appalachiablue]

33. His ex-wife from New Jersey was with him 8 years ago, only about 4 months

before leaving because of his unstable moods and abuse and returning to her supportive family, according to the lengthy, 10 min. NBC interview she gave that I followed.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. A misdemeanor DV conviction is forever.

No firearms. Rights would have to be manually petitioned from a court and reinstated by a judge.

A restraining order would do it too.

[appalachiablue]

63. That's wonderful like Hindsight is 20/20. How was a frightened, 19 year old

wife of four months who escaped an abusive husband due to the fortunate rescue by her family, supposed to report the man to police, secure a restraining order and/or criminal record, when she was under fear of being harassed and beaten more and likely pursued by him. All so that the man would be blocked in future years from purchasing a lethal weapon to commit mass murder. And as is too often the case, even with a criminal record he could have obtained a mass weapon via personal contact or an unscrupulous money hungry seller. On the FBI watch list but Her responsibility? Unbelievable.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. I don't care how old she was.

I was much younger than that the first time I was beaten unconscious by a family member. Your appeals to emotion are meaningless to me. I've been there too. I know what it's like, again, and again. I've regained consciousness, bleeding, in a puddle of urine. Thanks for asking. I know what it takes to endure, I know what it takes to escape, and I know what it takes to stand up and make sure no one else has to. It's not easy, and not every person can. And the judicial system fails people at every turn, when they try. I know all this.

That's why I didn't say it was 'her responsibility'. I said it was a missed opportunity. That's not a criticism of her, that's an indictment of ALL of us, because these legal mechanisms are a social construct. You me, everyone. And knowing something about predators like him, I know how precious few opportunities there are to sequester them away from their victims, present and future.

All so that the man would be blocked in future years from purchasing a lethal weapon to commit mass murder.

So fucking self-righteously dismissive. I asked, here and in other threads what more we can do to enable people like THAT victim to successfully come forward, so this shit down the line doesn't happen. These fucking monsters don't stop, until they are stopped. The law is a tool to do it, the array of protections for domestic violence victims are one tool, one opportunity to halt. a. monster.

All for naught if the opportunity is missed.


So, I ask again, what can we do to prevent this shit. What can we do to encourage victims to come forward. To prosecute, flag, perhaps even rehabilitate these monsters.

[appalachiablue]

93. Given your experience and steadfast solutions to the problems I think you

must have authored books, given lectures and seminars, and worked as an advocate for victims and greater society to not miss any opportunities and seriously change public policy and law enforcement practices.

[Dorian Gray]

94. Jesus

Is the snark in response to that post necessary?

The poster made it clear he/she didn't blame the ex wife. He/she bemoaned the missed opportunity and questioned what we could do as a society to make it easier for victims of domestic abuse to come forward. I think that's a good point. And it's possible AthiestCrusader has done some of those things. Who are we to be critical.

I feel the greatest sympathy for the ex wife and I'm happy for her she was able to escape this monster. Living with this would be a nightmare.

Wishing that 50 people weren't dead because of him and wondering where along the line something could have happened to prevent it is a natural mode of questioning post a horrific crime like this.

[appalachiablue]

95. If you read the person's full account of their own experience

and other posts displaying intense passion, conviction and ideas to tackle failed systems which inhibit victims from contacting authorities about abusive people who commit these crimes and may cause greater harm you would understand my comments are serious.

[Duppers]

96. +100

[AtheistCrusader]

98. I am not a public speaker.

But yes, I have worked with law enforcement, I have reported every problem I see, I have taken people in to shelter them, and a good deal besides. How much of my CV do you need to know to allow me to ask an exploratory question without having my motives passive-aggressively questioned?

[appalachiablue]

99. Good for you, that's wonderful and a great service. All the best in life and work.

[MariaThinks]

102. You are right and courageous.

[GulfCoast66]

70. Not attacking here

But at first I read this as blaming her for not reporting and allowing it to happen.

Please tell me your were not blaming an abused spouse for this.

Again, not saying that was your intention, and if I read it wrong I apologize.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. No.

I am aware that there can be reasons not to.

That's on us to flatten or destroy whatever barriers induce a partner not to report physical violence.


It is a dissapointing missed opportunity is all.

[GulfCoast66]

74. Ok.

But your whole missed opportunity bothers me. Please listen to what she said.

She just wanted out and her family helped her.

She had no suspension that this would happen

She should be irrelevant to this discussion.

Have a nice evening.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. It's not irrelevant. It's a missed opportunity.

She said she was physically abused, did she not? That is an opportunity for society to discover and flag an individual as being ineligible to acquire a firearm.

We need laws that protect the public to work. That includes understanding missed opportunities where we can so-flag people like him. You only get so many chances to discover that sort of thing.

I said I don't blame her. She was probably terrified of him. On the other hand, so far 50 people died, terrified too. I don't desire to make her guilty of that. I desire to remove whatever impediment drove her to remain silent. That could mean any number of things that women everywhere in that situation could find beneficial. More safe houses, more aggressive prosecution and sequestration of suspects. Etc.

[JonathanRackham]

3. Didn't Disney step up their security some years ago?

[Carly]

11. More so in the past year

We go to Disney about every year. They've checked bags for as long as I can remember but shortly after San Bernardino they really stepped it up. They now have metal detectors at all 4 parks and I noticed a lot more security presence at Magic Kingdom when we were there last month. Screening is totally random though- my 11 year old and myself never went through anything other than bag check but they did pull my 15 year old son for additional screening. There is no bag check or anything at Disney Springs (downtown Disney).

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Yes, but.

It's security theater. Seriously.

If you've seen it in person, you'll understand why I say that.

[kimmylavin]

17. It says Downtown Disney.

That's not the theme park - it's the shops & restaurants outside.
You just have to pay for parking to go there, not go through security.

[PeaceNikki]

25. In DisneyLand they screen everyone going to Downtown Disney now.

I have no doubt the same is true in DW

[SoCalMusicLover]

26. When Did This Start?

Last time I was there, you could walk right into DD from the DD parking lot. The machines were only in the Esplanade area in front of the parks.

[PeaceNikki]

40. Not sure, I was there in January for the Star Wars marathon weekend.

That was after San Bernardino.

Google indicates it started in December.

http://www.disneyexaminer.com/2015/12/17/disneyland-heightening-security-measures-with-new-screening-procedure/

[Takket]

62. they screen at the parks but not downtown disney

downtown disney is a giant open air shopping mall that you can walk into from dozens of places. there is simply no reasonable way to screen people there.

I'm talking about Florida here, not California.

[PeaceNikki]

64. In California at Disneyland's Downtown Disney they do screen now

I was there in January. They started in December. I don't know about Orlando, it's been a couple years since I was there.

http://www.disneyexaminer.com/2015/12/17/disneyland-heightening-security-measures-with-new-screening-procedure/

[glowing]

27. Exactly, no security at Down Town Disney.. It has theaters, restaurants,

And night clubs. Very limited security. Security inside night clubs is typically monitoring for fights or is 18 and up are allowed in, to monitor under age drinking.

And even the "security" they have at Disney, is one long, large clusterfuck. If any terrorist wanted to be successful, they would bring along a "family" and a couple of stoller's. They tend to look at the mayhem of a family with stroller's and children as a quick spot check before the younger ones not in a stroller end up running off and becoming lost. My bags were barely glanced at anytime we go... And there are so many people. If a shooter wanted to be successful at taking out a large crowd at Disney Magic Kingdom, all they need to do is wait until the fireworks go off at the castle. Disney shuts down half the park, pushes everyone tightly into the "castle area", turns the lights off, and everyone's focus is then at the castle and the fireworks are literally popping off in a manner that could cover gun noise quite quickly. OR they could infiltrate by becoming workers for 6 mo to a year as garbage sweepers or ride workers. The fact that Disney hasn't yet been the target or a large theme park hasn't been attacked is only because terrorist haven't chosen to hit a theme park.

Now, on the other side of the equation, once again, the FBI is involved in the man's life and you are telling me they couldn't place something on his background check to deny buying a weapon? It's similar to the stories we hear out of Boston with the bombing attack and that the older brother was on the FBI raidar... And yet, the FBI in their "fight against terror", seem to "catch the bad guys" when they have and FBI undercover officer working with a group or a person that literally helps these potential "bad guys" create a plan, get the devices/ weapons for the "bad guys", and then pat themselves on the back over an arrest. Also, doesn't the NSA monitor everyone and everything? If the FBI have been involved in speaking to someone with a violent background, couldn't they set a special monitor in place from the NSA to keep an eye on their activity?

Seems to me, just like with the Boston Brothers that literally communicated via e-mail and such, and now this guy, that their were definitely people around that were telling about his instability.

[PeaceNikki]

41. In Disneyland they screen everyone going to Downtown Disney now.

I was there in January.

[glowing]

67. Last time I was in Orlando, Downtown Disney is a rather open area with no security like that

[Nye Bevan]

87. I was there in February and they don't.

Downtown Disney is an unenclosed, ungated area containing shops, restaurants, and a movie theater. There are numerous places to enter and leave it and they are not guarded and there is no security screening. At one end of Downtown Disney, however, is the Esplanade, the large open area containing the entrance to Disneyland and the main entrance to Disney's California Adventure, the two theme parks. There is mandatory bag check and random security screening for anyone entering the Esplanade, which would include people going to the theme parks.

[HockeyMom]

105. Sounds like Spring Training MLB Stadiums do a better job

Very long line with big, burly armed Security Guards. No backpacks, coolers, allowed. It was just like TSA Airports minus the machines. Patting people down, emptying contents of women's purses, etc. No guns allowed, period. Security said to everyone that if they had had a license to carry, their guns would have to be secured in their cars and they would not be admitted inside the Stadium with them. MORE Gun Free Zones!!!

This was in the Twins Ft. Myers Stadium a few years ago. Perhaps, the bigger City Stadiums might even have metal detectors? Don't know. At any rate, pretty difficult to conceal an Assault Rife in FLORIDA. Wear a Trench Coat?????

[Nye Bevan]

106. But Downtown Disney is really just a shopping mall.

Do you advocate security like that for every shopping mall?

[tallahasseedem]

6. If she knew...

she should be considered a co-conspirator.

[herding cats]

7. It sounds to me as if this federal law enforcement source is assuming

Not to mention the way it's worded makes it appear the wife knew, which is very irresponsible of all involved.

I'll wait for some actual facts before I rush to judgement here.

[MariaThinks]

103. and what will you do if it turns out she did know? like so many did with the other radical islam

motivated attacks.

[herding cats]

104. I won't do anything.

I'm not a federal authority.

Which has nothing to do with someone alluding to a fact that she may have known before it's a known fact. That's irresponsible, and dangerous if she's innocent of the allegations.

[jimlup]

8. I'm not a lawyer

I would guess it would hing on how much of the reality of it she knew. She could have prior knowledge and still think he wouldn't really act on his claims also, once she knew, how long does she get to approach the authorities? I'm not sure of her guilt under such circumstances. Maybe someone with knowledge of the law on this can comment.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Spousal Privilege

Federally as well as in many states prevent compelling a spouse
to testify against a spouse

Don't know how it would apply here

[WillowTree]

20. That wouldn't prevent her from voluntarily contacting authorities to try to prevent an atrocity.

[Travis_0004]

78. Privledge does not cover future crimes

A wife or lawyer can not hide behind privilege if they know about future crimes.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. So she helped him plan and kept the secrets, why is she not in jail?

Favoritism toward religious straights who are allowed all things.

[63splitwindow]

10. Do you know that she is not in custody?

I wasn't even aware that he had this second wife until I saw this article. If the story is true, she could obviously possibly provide a great deal of further information the investigators would be seeking. Not necessarily jailed but in custodial interrogation might be her current status. We simply don't know, do we?

[WillowTree]

21. Gee.......maybe they decided to collect the facts first.

Do you know for a fact that she knew what his intent was? No? Maybe the authorities don't have enough information to arrest her yet, either.

[arely staircase]

14. I dont think there is any legal duty to stop a crime if you arent a cop.

I could be wrong.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Misprision of a Felony.

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 1 › § 4
18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

So, just conspiracy to commit this crime would have been sufficient. Ironically, she'd be insulated from this, as a spouse, knowing that the 5th protects from self-incrimination, also covering her part of the conspiracy.

Fucking hell.

[63splitwindow]

18. Opinions would differ drastically...

about any effect her being his spouse would have. The 5th still applies to her, for sure, but what, if any, other evidence of her alleged knowledge is there or will be discovered? If she knew what the story says she knew you can bet that every imagineable rock will be overturned in the effort to prove it.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. True. All very early in the investigation too.

Personally I expect she'll be indicted at some point, for some crime related to fore-knowledge.

[arely staircase]

24. "conceal" would seem to require overt action to keep it from being found out

not sure just going about your business and knowing about it rises to that level.

obviously there would be a moral obligation to report.

[closeupready]

35. Moral obligation, no question about it.

Agreed.

[appalachiablue]

36. This reminds me of the friends of Dylan Roof, the Charleston, SC

AME Church mass murderer. Several of them were aware that he followed online ideology of right wing, Aryan and racist groups and more. I don't recall if they were seriously interviewed or ever charged with anything, doubt it.

[63splitwindow]

42. This line from the original quote...

"Salman told law enforcement on Sunday, hours after the attack at Pulse, that Mateen had recently scouted both the nightclub and Downtown Disney as potential attack targets." (emphasis added)

IF TRUE that she was aware that his purpose was as stated then she should be prosecuted as a co-conspirator to the absolute full extent of the law and for all resultant injuries and deaths, IMO.

[jberryhill]

39. "having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony"

What felony was actually committed?

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Sounds like conspiracy to me.

A crime unto itself, even if the actual act is not yet carried out.

[jberryhill]

47. It says "actual commission"

The statute is making a distinction there by using the words "actual commission", not planning, not expression of intent, etc..

[AtheistCrusader]

56. The statute for conspiracy defines that.

Not misprision. Conspiracy is a crime that is actually committed and can be prosecuted before the act is carried out.

[jberryhill]

57. I feel bad for your law school

I really do.

Yes, attempts and conspiracy are what we lawyers call "inchoate crimes" because they have not actually been committed yet. That is why the statute in question says "actual commission" to make that distinction.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on tv.

18 us code 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States does not seem to make that distinction. Apologies if I'm off the reservation.

[jberryhill]

66. She's not a conspirator unless she aided the action

Failing to report someone's intention to commit a crime is not a crime.

This conversation has gone into a loop.

1. Someone said it was misprision of felony not to report someone's intention to commit a crime.

2. Misprision of felony (which is quoted above) requires "actual commission" of a crime.

3. Then someone said, well what about conspiracy (as the crime which is the subject of misprision).

4. Conspiracy to commit a crime is an inchoate crime. It does not, as you point out, require actual commission of a crime.

5. ...which brings us back to the distinction made in the misprision statute, which DOES require actual commission of a crime.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Scoping out targets might make one a conspirator.

Can you cite case law that misprision cannot apply to conspiracy?

[jberryhill]

69. Read the statute

It requires a completed crime, and it also requires "conceals and does not as soon as possible make known". Again the word "and" signals joint independent requirements, in this instance active concealment.

No, we don't have jails filled with people who thought someone was planning a crime, didn't report it, and then that person went out and committed a different crime than the one being planned.

Yes, with the killer dead here, people have an unsatisfied sense of justice. But quite obviously, this guy was a regular lone visitor to the club in question, and quite obviously the club is not located in Disney World.

So even if he took her to Disney World with the stated reason that he wanted to check out security measures there, and even if she went along on that trip for that stated purpose, it has jack shit to do with what he eventually ended up doing on his own.

[prayin4rain]

71. Wait, you're saying that the act of helping to scope out possible places to

commit a crime is not an act in furtherance of a crime?

[jberryhill]

75. She was in no way involved in what happened

If I "help you scope out" (which is an interesting reading of being taken along on a trip) a bank you are thinking of robbing, and then the next week you go off on your own and rob a liquor store, I am not a co-conspirator in any sense in the robbery of the liquor store.

[prayin4rain]

82. Agreed.

And, yes, you're right, we don't know what she knew about Disneyland.

But, if we agree to rob a bank and go scope a bank to rob, then we've conspired to rob a bank, even if NO bank ends up being robbed.

[GulfCoast66]

72. If you know that this was going happen

And all the details and did not report, you are look at life in the pen. You are a conspirator.

[arely staircase]

89. Without at least one overt act, I don't think so.

Simply lying about his whereabouts while he prepared could count. But I don't think, at least in most states, just having the info in your head and not reporting it rises to the level of any crime including conspiracy.

It is certainly morally wrong. But illegal I don't think so.

[totodeinhere]

115. What about the moral duty to save 49 innocent lives? n/t

[arely staircase]

118. I have said that in this thread. nt

[Fumesucker]

22. It's possilbe the wife didn't know at the time and twigged to the purpose after the shootings

A lot of things become clear in retrospect and light of new information that were opaque at the time.

[pangaia]

23. God, I can not believe the comments in this thread..

[ck4829]

79. It's sickening really

There's nothing in the article that actually indicates she knew or was scouting with him, but you know, people will assume things.

[SoCalMusicLover]

29. Tsarnaev's Wife Was Never Charged Either

In between her daily beatings and verbal abuse, and her conversion to Islam, Katherine Tsarnaev apparently missed the bombs being built next to her beloved daughter's crib. She was a real piece of work.

[renate]

31. in fairness to her, I wonder what would have been done if she'd reported it

I mean, there must be angry spittle-spewing misanthropes all over the country who are shooting off their mouths about their violent plans. Some of them may even be deadly (no pun intended) serious, while some are just flapping their gums.

I suspect that, had she contacted the police, they'd only have been able to make a note of her report but not been able to do anything until he'd actually, well, done something. The fact that he'd been investigated before might have made a difference (if agencies are any better at identifying people and coordinating their data than they used to be), but they couldn't have incarcerated him for being an asswipe.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I learned from a poster last night that the FBI will follow up threats more carefully than the police can, so maybe something would have happened. But I doubt he'd have been stopped.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. The killer was frequently under FBI observation and questioning so she would not have had

to search far for people who would have listened to her. It would not have been la random call about a random person. He was of interest to them.

[spinbaby]

112. On the other hand...

...because the FBI had let him go before and because he had a history of domestic violence, she may have been afraid that if she said anything, he would be loose and after her in no time.

[Ilsa]

32. I'm guessing that she thought that if she

Reported him, and he found out that she reported him, he'd either beat her or kill her or kill their kid, or all of the above. I bet she was terrorized, too.

[closeupready]

34. Spouses aren't compelled to testify against each other.

For starters.

Secondly, you seem eager to hang 'em high on little more than a blog posting from some right-wing internet tabloid. Doesn't take much for some.

[63splitwindow]

38. You are very, very confused...

in what way would she be testifying against her spouse by reporting his activities to appropriate law enforcement? You do understand what the word "testify" means don't you?

[closeupready]

46. If you know what "compelled" means, then you know I was saying

she isn't legally obligated to report his activities.

If she knew, she should have done so anyway, on every other level.

[63splitwindow]

50. The fact that she could not be compelled to testify against her husband...

is NOT the same as her obligation to report his intent to commit murder, INCLUDING at the legal level.

[closeupready]

51. Done here, thanks.

[jberryhill]

52. I have no idea what you mean by the "legal level"

But if you hear someone say, "I'd like to kill a bunch of people" you don't have any sort of duty to report that to anyone.

And so, what is you imagine happens after someone is reported for thinking about killing people?

[63splitwindow]

53. Read the post I was responding to...

and you will see why the term "legal level" was used.

"Salman told law enforcement on Sunday, hours after the attack at Pulse, that Mateen had recently scouted both the nightclub and Downtown Disney as potential attack targets." You equate that with a statement "I'd like to kill a bunch of people"?

" Aiding and Abetting a Crime (Penal Code section 31)

In California, you can be charged with the crime that was committed if you aided or abetted in its commission, but did not actually commit the crime yourself. Penal Code section 31 describes the phrase “aiding and abetting” as meaning that you assisted another person to commit a crime. Prosecutors can charge you as an aider and abettor whenever you:
●Know the perpetrator’s illegal plan,
●Intentionally encourage and/or facilitate that plan, and
●Aid, promote, or instigate in the crime’s commission.

You don’t have to be actually present at the scene of the crime to be charged under what is known as “accomplice liability.” If you willfully participated in the planning of a crime prior to its commission, you can be held criminally liable as an “accessory before the fact.”

https://www.wklaw.com/knowing-about-a-crime-and-not-saying-anything/

[jberryhill]

55. I happen to be an attorney

And the idiocy here parading as "legal" knowledge is astounding.

Even if that piece you copied and pasted, do you see the word "and"? There are three things listed there. They are joined by the word "and", not the word "or".

If my wife leaves the house and says, "I'm off to rob the bank, I'll be back in about an hour" then I can say, "okay, have a fun time at the bank."

No, you do not become a conspirator merely by knowing someone else's plan.

[jberryhill]

58. Let me make this simple for you

Do you see what you posted?

●Know the perpetrator’s illegal plan,
●Intentionally encourage and/or facilitate that plan, and
●Aid, promote, or instigate in the crime’s commission.

Do you see the word "and"?

In order to be a conspirator, that word "and" is telling you that you have to do ALL THREE of those things.

[63splitwindow]

59. Ok F Lee Bailey......

did you read in the original post how she accompanied the shooter, the man she was married to and lived with, to one of the potential targets in April? You want her possible participation investigated at all Barney or is she good to go?

[jberryhill]

84. Yes I read an unsourced piece of information

...and have a lot more confidence in professionals who actually know the law than armchair graduates of Google University who can't even read the stuff they come up with.

[63splitwindow]

86. Who are you---

the Don Rickles of you local bar? You're flopping here.

[msanthrope]

97. He's a respected member of the bar who just took you

to the woodshed. My colleague is rather on point today.

[63splitwindow]

108. You carry his briefcase? nt

[msanthrope]

109. he is a scholar and a gentleman, he would offer to carry mine. nt

[63splitwindow]

113. "Wife of Orlando shooter could soon face charges: source"

" The wife of the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando gay nightclub could soon be charged in connection with the attack, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, a law enforcement source said on Tuesday.

FoxNews.com, citing an FBI source, said prosecutors had convened a grand jury to investigate Omar Mateen's wife, Noor Salman. They are seeking to charge her as an accessory to 49 counts of murder and 53 counts of attempted murder and failure to notify law enforcement about the pending attack and lying to federal agents.

NBC News, citing multiple unnamed sources, said Salman told federal agents she tried to talk her husband out of carrying out the attack. But she also told the FBI she once drove him to the nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out, the network said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-idUSKCN0Z017C

[trumad]

43. Disney would have been a different outcome.

They got good security.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

48. Maybe she thought the NSA was going to stop him.

[notadmblnd]

49. A few years back here in Michigan

A car wash worker, hijacked a woman's Cadillac as she was going thru and stuffed her in the trunk. He then drove around in the car for a week with his fiance with the woman in the trunk. She eventually died as a result of drinking the window washer fluid.

When the case went to court, it came out that even though the fiance heard sounds from the trunk while riding in the car on and off for a week, she was under no obligation to be a good Samaritan and turn the kidnapper in for his crime.

I don't know what Fla law is. I believe the wife is morally responsible in contributing to the deaths, but there may be nothing she can be charged with for not reporting what her husband intended to do.

[jberryhill]

54. It's pretty much all silliness here

In the old East Germany, people had an obligation to report what they thought other people might be up to.

I guess folks here think ringing up the police and saying "I think so-and-so is thinking about killing bunch of people" is supposed to get so-and-so arrested, "watched" (as if the FBI has tons of folks on call to indefinitely watch whomever some random person calls in and wants watched), or something like that.

When was this "report" supposed to have been made? Before he bought the guns?

And so, in response, the FBI is supposed to do what? Come by the house and say, "Hey we got a tip you want to kill a bunch of people" and if the guy says, "Gee, yes I do want to kill a bunch of people" then what is supposed to happen?

It's not illegal to want to kill people.

[63splitwindow]

61. Or is it Clarence?

[HooptieWagon]

77. I read online that current wife has clammed up.

Is NOT cooperating with LE.

[63splitwindow]

80. Can you remember (or figure out) where (at what site)? nt

[HooptieWagon]

81. I don't remember, but I'll make a quick search.

[HooptieWagon]

83. Here. Orlando Sentinal, about halfway down.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-nightclub-omar-mateen-profile-20160613-story.html

[63splitwindow]

92. Thanks.

It mentions Disney World but does not tell us where that info came from. If not the wife, I wonder who. As mentioned, any competent lawyer would advise her to exercise her 5th Amendment rights at this stage.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Even if she is wholly innocent of any possible crime whatever

that is a good move by her, and likely good advice from a good lawyer, and actually in no way suggests she's done anything at all.

[bjo59]

91. The latest news is that he visited the Pulse nightclub frequently over the past 3 years and he

did not go with his wife.

[63splitwindow]

110. Information today from CNN

"...
Disney security officials told the FBI they believe Mateen also visited Disney World on April 26 to conduct surveillance, a law enforcement official told CNN. The FBI is investigating that possibility.

Mateen's wife, Noor Salman, was with him on the Disney World visit. Authorities are investigating whether she knew about her husband's intent, the official said. Salman has spoken to investigators.
..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/us/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen/index.html

[63splitwindow]

111. Latest update...

"...
Justice Department prosecutors and FBI investigators are now reviewing her account and other evidence to determine whether they can bring charges of misprision of a felony because she allegedly failed to report her knowledge of his general plans to carry out some kind of attack.

Misprision is deliberate concealment of knowledge of a pending crime. The gunman's wife traveled with him when he visited the Pulse nightclub and Disney Springs in early June, according to a law enforcement official. The visits, investigators believe, were intended to case locations for possible attacks. It's unclear how much she knew at the time about his intentions.
..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/us/orlando-gunman-omar-mateen-wife-fbi/index.html

[Mandos the Judge]

116. Latest update...

In that case I suspect they won't file charges. Simple failure to report isn't enough for misprision. If they want a conviction they'd have to prove she actively concealed knowledge of the pending crime and that doesn't appear to be the case it seems.

[63splitwindow]

117. Latest update...

NOT final resolution. Her potential involvement was the lead story on the NBC national news this evening.

[ButterflyBlood]

114. I bet she gets the death penalty if it turns out she had any planning involvement

I guarantee it.