Mateen's wife knew what he planned, but didn't report it. There should be a life sentence for that.

[DanM]

That kind of law would have prevented this tragedy!

[joshcryer]

1. She'll get time.

But it'll probably be reduced since she's been so open about her utter failure as a human being.

[DanM]

3. Which is why I'm calling for a law to make it a life sentence if you withhold knowledge like she had

[joshcryer]

5. That'll be for the trial jury to decide.

She knew, admitted as much, her defense lawyers will try their best to lower the sentence. Laws cannot be retrospective. But I don't disagree she, if found guilty, should receive the fullest extent of the law.

[marybourg]

25. And if the FBI interviews him -

as they already had done - only this time because she reported him, are they going to protect her for ever after? Does she have to be willing to sacrifice the marriage for a suspicion? How strong does a suspicion have to be to report the father of your children, a person who has already been violent to one wife?

Are we really so cowed by the terrorists that we are ready to encourage wives and husbands to spy on and report on each other for fear of being implicated and jailed?

This is a complicated situation and there's a very good reason why, in general, spouses are not required to testify against each other. Immediate resort to macho calls for punishment belongs on right wing sites; not DU. In my opinion, of course

[yeoman6987]

51. She'll get time? FBI can't find her

[CincyDem]

2. A question for the lawyers around here ?

Everything I know about the law, I learned from Boston Legal and The Good Wife. In light of those august credentials, isn't there something like "accessory before the fact" that applies here ?

[PJMcK]

4. I got my law degree from Law & Order

Let's not worry too much about Mateen's wife. The authorities have her and will use every tool they've got to bring her to justice. Right after these words from our commercial sponsors.


(sarcasm)

[CincyDem]

17. Law & Order?

Com'on man...you couldn't get into a real law school? I fart in the general direction of Law & Order !

[PJMcK]

18. But I got my secret agent decoder ring/bubble gum dispenser...

... from MacGyver.

[CincyDem]

19. Damn bubba - now that's an undergraduate degree ya can be proud of ! n/t

[closeupready]

29. I can top that - I'm Google University Law School Class of 2016.

So there.

[yeoman6987]

53. Oops. She disappeared. No joke.

[joshcryer]

6. The evidence (AS WE KNOW) suggest she knew beforehand.

IF she made no attempt to alert law enforcement, she is completely culpable, life sentence if not the death penalty.

AGAIN, if she didn't know and was aware. She is in deep trouble. I assign complete innocence on her behalf. As that is the literal standard in the court of law. It'll be up to the prosecution to make their case.

[bigwillq]

7. I agree. Life in prison. Let her rot. (nt)

[HereSince1628]

8. Laws provide for prosecution and penalty -after the fact-

The ability of fear of prosecution and punishment to dissuade is certainly not 100%

IMO, the ability of a law to create social awareness that prevents a behavior is even more dubious

Getting -in front- of these events so that they are prevented is difficult and raises problems of using prior restraint in a manner that guarantees equal protections under the law.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. I know there were reasons, but I bet those FBI agents who

investigated him feel horrible today. Just like anyone who ignored the reports that Al Qaeda would attack.

[methinks2]

16. I have thought the same thing.

I would like to add to that thought. How many people who heard him ranting his crazy talk about wanting to harm or kill people, bothered to turn him in? If only 2 people turn someone in for crazy talk, maybe this isn't taken so seriosly, how about if 50 people who heard the crazy talk turned this guy in? Would the authorities take the threat seriously at 50 repoerts? What is the magic number?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. That's a good point. On the practical side....I have thought, OK

we know a person is acting volatile and could do horrible harm....What do you do? Surely, our FBI doesn't have enough resources to follow one individual day and night. Times how many crazies are out there. could hopefully stop him from buying a gun...although I imagine you could get one in the black market.

[PJMcK]

40. You make a good point and a bad one

While I agree with you that the FBI agents probably feel horrible, I doubt that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their minions feel any remorse for the disasters they gave most of the world. They knew about the threat of attacks from al Qaeda but did nothing. After all, from their perspectives, everything went well and they and their friends made tons of money.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. You are right ! This is proven by the fact that they knowingly created

a war under false pretenses and war=certain death

[Mandos the Judge]

10. Doubtful she'll be prosecuted

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

"...The wife of Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mir Seddique Mateen told the FBI that her husband said he wanted to carry out a jihadist attack, though she denied knowledge of his plans to launch the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, a law enforcement official told CNN on Tuesday.
FBI investigators don't believe Noor Salman was a co-conspirator in the attack that killed 49 people Sunday morning at Pulse Nightclub, the source said.
But authorities are looking into whether she should face charges for what she may have known of his intentions and possibly failed to report to law enforcement.

...

Justice Department prosecutors and FBI investigators are reviewing Salman's account and other evidence to determine whether to bring charges against her for allegedly failing to report her knowledge of his general plans to carry out some kind of attack.
Such charges could include misprision, a deliberate concealment of knowledge of a pending crime..."

Seems conspiracy charges or aiding and abetting are out of the picture, which doesn't surprise me, considering the fact that she'd be under arrest if there were decent leads that was actually the case. Misprision seems to be out as well, since the simple failure to report a pending crime isn't enough. If they want a conviction for misprision they'd have to prove she actively concealed knowledge of the pending crime (and 'planning a jihadist attack' is rather vague as well) and that doesn't appear to be the case it seems. I suspect they won't file charges.

[exboyfil]

12. How about driving him to Pulse

so that he can do recon. It is a bit of a reach.

[Mandos the Judge]

15. Possible, but...

Possible, but still a reach, since apparently he regularly visited the club in secret, which would be difficult to reconcile with the notion that he needed to do recon in the first place. From what I've read in the news, her involvement is the following:

1. Mateen expressed a general intent to commit a jihadist attack on US soil. She apparently tried to dissuade him from doing so.
2. Mateen once asked her to drive him to then Pulse ‘so he could scope it out’. Unknown if he told specifically her he wanted to scope it out for an attack or if he said something in the line of “Hey, can you drive me to the Pulse? I want to check it out.” Unknown when exactly this occurred and difficult to reconcile with several witness reports claiming Mateen was a regular visitor of the Pulse.
3. She may have accompanied Mateen when he legally purchased arms and ammo a few days for the attack. Unknown if she knew at the time he purchased these for the impending attack. Of course, even if she knew he intended to use these for an attack it’s hard to see how her mere presence during the purchase could be constructed as involvement in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting in the legal sense.
4. When Mateen left she suspected he intended to carry out an attack and tried to dissuade him. Mateen just told her he was going out with friends.

Keep in mind that knowing or having a suspicion that someone is going to commit a crime and not reporting it, isn’t a crime of itself. A conviction for misprision is unlikely, unless evidence appears that she actively concealed knowledge of the pending crime, which doesn’t seem to be the case so far. I suspect the media circus and severity of the crime may well result in charges being filed and possibly even a conviction (people will want their pound of flesh and with Mateen dead Salman is the next best thing), but from a legal point of view it’s a rickety case at best, which is probably one the reasons authorities have been slow to press charges against her so far.

[treestar]

56. forgot these from law school:

Misprision of felony is the concealment of a felony committed by another person, but without such previous concert with, or subsequent assistance of the offender, as would make the concealer an accessory before or after the fact. The offence is a misdemeanour punishable on indictment by fine and imprisonment.

Under the old common law hierarchy of crimes (as treasons, felonies and misdemeanours), misprision of treason was a felony and misprision of felony was a misdemeanour. (There was no such offence as misprision of a misdemeanour.) These categories were abolished in 1967.

In the United States, misprision of treason (18 U.S.C. § 2382) is defined to be the crime committed by a person owing allegiance to the United States, and having knowledge of the commission of any treasonous crime against them, who conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the president or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor, or to some judge or justice of a particular state. The punishment is imprisonment for not more than seven years and a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.

The United States Code also includes misprision of felony (18 U.S.C. § 4).[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision

[exboyfil]

11. This was a federal crime but analogous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing#Michael_Fortier

Michael Fortier

Michael and Lori Fortier were considered accomplices for their foreknowledge of the planning of the bombing. In addition to Michael assisting McVeigh in scouting the federal building, Lori had helped McVeigh laminate a fake driver's license which was later used to rent the Ryder truck.[41] Michael agreed to testify against McVeigh and Nichols in exchange for a reduced sentence and immunity for his wife.[184] He was sentenced on May 27, 1998 to twelve years in prison and fined $75,000 for failing to warn authorities about the attack.[185] On January 20, 2006, after serving ten and a half years of his sentence, including time already served, Fortier was released for good behavior into the Witness Protection Program and given a new identity.[186]

[onecaliberal]

13. Accessory. Definitely.

[treestar]

14. What would be the charges?

State or federal? Is there a law saying you have to tell the cops of anything you hear that might lead to a crime?

The jails could be even fuller. What of people who know their SO is dealing drugs?

[PoliticAverse]

24. If you drive someone to a location so they can scope it out for a crime they intend to commit...

I'm pretty sure you can be charged with something.

[jberryhill]

30. There's a downside to prosecuting

If you had a general suspicion that someone was "up to no good", and then they go and do a horrible thing, then do you:

1. Help authorities piece together that person's activities, associates and movements, or

2. Get a lawyer and plead the Fifth.

A lot of things that were not obvious before the fact may take on new relevance after the fact. But what many are suggesting here is that if you know anyone that does a horrible thing, then you should lawyer up and not talk.

Systematically, that works against us.

[PoliticAverse]

32. Prosecutors could offer immunity in such a case of course, if they think the person has valuable

information and wasn't actively involved. Regardless don't you think she would need a lawyer to
advise her in this case?

[jberryhill]

36. There are a lot of "facts" coming second-hand and whisper-down-the-lane

Obviously, the guy's co-workers said he was on about killing people for years, so I doubt the guy was different at home.

So the suggestion that "she knew he wanted to kill people" isn't really much of a thing. It's what everyone who met the guy seems to know.

"I'm going to Disney World to see if its a good place to kill people, wanna go?"

Given the charmer of a life anyone had around this guy, yeah you might as well at least get out to Disney World for the day.

[treestar]

52. I agree; didn't the McDonald's shooter tell his wife

he was going out to "hunt humans?" How was she supposed to know he was serious? After the fact, now she can get it.

[treestar]

50. I'd ask a prosecutor

There could be some law regarding it, but we don't know. So I'm finding the declarations she should be jailed a bit out there.

[tenderfoot]

20. Back in 1984, James Huberty told his wife he was going hunt humans...

she said nothing until after he blazed a McDonalds killing 21 people and injured 19 others.

I don't recall her being charged for not alerting authorities.

[Igel]

22. However Dylann Roof,

the Charleston, SC, killer, told his friend Joey Meeks about his plans.

Meeks thought Roof was exaggerating. Didn't report it.

Meeks was charged last September for not reporting it and plead not guilty. In early May he reached a plea deal with the authorities.

Apparently it depends on specificity and possibly on how believable the claims are.

It may be that in 1984 there wasn't such a law. "Good Samaritan" laws come and go.

[Mandos the Judge]

23. True that

True, but Meek told friends of theirs that he suspected that Roof was behind the killings and not to report Roof to the police. Classical case of misprision.

[exboyfil]

28. Sounds like obstruction as well

Telling others not to talk.

[treestar]

55. So there was a charge in SC

that applied. I wonder how that statute is worded.

[treestar]

54. but did she realize what he was actually going to do?

And what would come of a call to police saying he went out with a gun to hunt humans? Would the police go looking for him on the strength of that? I suppose they could, but if he's gone from the house and she doesn't know a specific destination all they can do is look for his car.

[TipTok]

21. Doesn't he have a history of domestic abuse as well?

[hamsterjill]

59. Yes, at least with the first wife.

The first wife has spoken out about him beating her.

I've not heard or seen anything that indicates the current wife has claimed that, but I'm sure it will be relevant to her defense. If she was fearful of her life for reporting him, that might have bearing on her decision not to report him.

I'm NOT saying I don't think she's culpable in some way - just adding to the discussion here. It will be interesting to see how the grand jury goes.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. There should be several life sentences for that. Her silence condemned families of those innocent

victims to a lifetime of pain, sorrow, and suffering. She should be made to suffer the same.

Several life sentences without the possibility of parole or the possibility of getting out early for "good behavior".

She should've immediately contacted the police. Instead, her silence condemned 49 people to death and countless more to suffer wounds that will never heal.

[LoverOfLiberty]

48. Maybe she didn't believe he would really do it

Maybe she figured since he had already been reported and cleared that her and her family's lives would be in danger if she did.

Its too easy to pronounce judgment without all the facts

[BlueCaliDem]

49. I'm not going to guess what she may or may not have believed. Fact remains, she should have

reported his intentions to the police, and she could've done it anonymously if she was so afraid of her life. He wasn't the most stable husband to begin with, I know, but I won't play devil's advocate on this one, LoL. You go on ahead and have fun with that.

[2naSalit]

27. Seems there is

a grand jury being assembled to consider charges against her. He has a history of domestic abuse.

[HooptieWagon]

31. Two problems with that 'logic'.

Spouses testifying against each other isn't required. Making turning a spouse in to authorities is problematic. What if they're mistaken? What if a spouse physically threatened the other with harm?
In this specific case I don't see what good it would have done. FBI had already cleared him twice, for alleged terrorism contacts. Cleared to be a security guard, cleared to carry a weapon on the job, and cleared to purchase guns and a large amount of ammunition.

[treestar]

58. You're right - spousal privilege is another issue

she may not have had to testify against him at all.

[librarylu]

33. What about the child?

There's a little boy in this too.

She's innocent until proved guilty, BTW.

[Just reading posts]

35. What about him? Having a small child doesn't shield one from criminal charges.

[librarylu]

38. What happens to him

if his mother is convicted? So far she hasn't even been charged.

Apparently his father didn't notice anything wrong even on the morning of the attack.

[Just reading posts]

41. The same thing that happens to the child of any criminal who is convicted.

So far she hasn't even been charged.

Correct. And if there's sufficient evidence to charge her, she should be. If there isn't, then don't.

[librarylu]

43. Would he go to the grandparents

who are supposed to be so awful? I've been watching interviews with Mateen's father. He doesn't appear to be a monster.

[Just reading posts]

45. I don't know. That would be up to the courts.

[MFM008]

60. You have to be careful with

who 'appears' to be a monster.
serial killers
mobsters
psychos
can all seem like nice guys...

[Warpy]

34. She might be charged as an accessory

but given his history of beating a wife, I'm willing to cut her a little slack. She was also busy with a new baby.

A lot more investigation is needed here before you fling the rope over the tree branch.

[jberryhill]

37. Hey, this torch is a rental! How long you want I should wait?

[librarylu]

46. Yes

New baby? I've only read about the three-year-old. That's busy enough. She may have been in denial too. For some reason I keep thinking of Marina Oswald.

According to the first wife he was abusive because she went to a different aisle in the grocery store.

I'm sure we'll hear more from the second wife in due time.

[libdem4life]

39. They would have just said she was...take your pick:

1) Looking for attention
2) Trying to gain the upper hand in a divorce (is applicable)
3) An unreliable witness. Go home, little lady.
4) (Possible) You've been here before. Just leave him.

See, this would have clearly been a domestic threat...LEOs don't respond to those. If they did, she'd be dead, because frankly when they did, they got shot.

Sorry to pop your bubble, but even more especially given her religion and cultural "place".

Life just isn't that simple. I abhor the carnage, but to blame it on the wife?

I know it's tempting to play Monday Morning Quarterback.

[LanternWaste]

47. It can be frustrating when we don't have enough people to blame to our satisfaction.

It can be frustrating when we don't have enough people to blame to our satisfaction.

[SheilaT]

57. Really? You think she'd have been fully aware of such a law

had there been one in effect?

The real aiders and abettors are those who refuse to pass laws making the kind of guns he bought illegal, and allow people on terrorist and no-fly lists to buy guns.

It really is the guns. It's not the wife. Well, it's the guns and the man who shot them, but it's still not the wife.

[melman]

61. Yeah

It's the wife too. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141491774