Omar Mateen's Wife Tried to Talk Him Out of Orlando Attack, Sources Say

a reply to: Chickensalad

I'm not seeing it. I'm just seeing you trying to desperately link this case to the Dylan Roof incident so you can sneak in complaints about the Confederate flag controversy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And they said that's why she's in trouble. They said she should've immediately called 911 instead of trying herself to talk him out of it.

ETA: Of course she's going to say she tried to talk him out of it. She could be trying to save her ass. That's heresay. A 911 call would've been recorded.

a reply to: shooterbrody

She likely knew he was up to something, but again I'm not entirely sure she knew it was going to be a terrorist attack of that scale. I'm not trying to say she is innocent, but I'm not trying to call her guilty because of some preliminary information released to the public. The fact of the matter is that there hasn't been enough information released to convict this lady in a court of law. It's all circumstantial at the moment. The FBI hasn't even arrested her yet. She's only merely lawyered up, which I think is a fantastic idea since so many people are so anxious to judge her (such as yourself) without a trial.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Like I said, I'm not saying she's innocent. You guys may well be right here and she is criminally negligent, but what if she didn't say anything because she truly thought she could stop him without involving the authorities?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable


Being present for the gun purchase and driving him to the bar at one point are circumstantial. I want to know the extent to how much she knew he was planning on doing. Perhaps she merely had an idea he was going to do something bad, but didn't know to the extent he was willing to go?

Keep in mind, if your and my running theory is true it is likely that she knew very little about what he was planning on doing since he was already embarrassed about his sexual identity and too many details may reveal that secret to her.

They said she admitted she know he went there to shoot. Maybe he told her it was religion based to shoot gays because he might have been too embarrassed to tell her he was gay himself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

She said she tried to talk him out of the attack. What else could that possibly mean?
Why would you try to interpret what she said to be anything other than "I tried to talk him out of the attack"?

The fact of the matter is those are her words. Those words indicate more than one person knew about the attack before it happened. This was not the work of a lone crazy person.

She gave material support to a terrorist.

This is beyond dispute, unless you are a krazy brainwashed zealot Muslim apologist.

Go after the rest of th family/cell as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude! I don't give a flying #### about that damn flag controversy.

See what you want I guess, and place whatever thoughts you want in my mouth, you do it all the damn time to posters, but please, for the sake of all that is ATS, READ what people actually type, not what you want to hear.

a reply to: Pyrrho

I'm not attempting to excuse him or his crime. Why do you continue to lie on this point?

You're the one pretending to know his frame of mind, what he thought, meant, and what he was loyal to.

I know as much or more than you do, so stop pretending otherwise. You want to jump on the RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM™ bandwagon with the rest of your wingnut mates, that's fine and dandy. I don't and I'm not because none of the evidence points in that direction.

Stop implying that you're not posting here on the basis of your political beliefs. It's absurd.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable


Being present for the gun purchase and driving him to the bar at one point are circumstantial. I want to know the extent to how much she knew he was planning on doing. Perhaps she merely had an idea he was going to do something bad, but didn't know to the extent he was willing to go?

Keep in mind, if your and my running theory is true it is likely that she knew very little about what he was planning on doing since he was already embarrassed about his sexual identity and too many details may reveal that secret to her.

They said she admitted she know he went there to shoot. Maybe he told her it was religion based to shoot gays because he might have been too embarrassed to tell her he was gay himself.

See you are playing a game of circumstances in lieu of compelling evidence. You see evidence that gives weight to a possible story, but you are putting all your eggs into one batch on that story before further evidence can be uncovered to corroborate this evidence. Your story could be true, but I can sit here and think of plenty of other versions of events that could also be true and fit the evidence given. Plus, you do know that people sign false confessions all the time, right? Who knows, maybe the police coerced her to lie because they were biased and thinking the same things you are thinking?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

She said she tried to talk him out of the attack. What else could that possibly mean?

There are plenty of things that could mean.

Why would you try to interpret what she said to be anything other than "I tried to talk him out of the attack"?

I'm trying not to interpret anything about it actually and am trying to convince others such as yourself to hold your judgement until further evidence is released. What happens, if she is cleared of all charges for legitimate reasons, but you refuse to believe it because you've convinced yourself that you are right here? You are just setting yourself up for failure when the smart course of action is to withhold judgment until all the facts are in.

The fact of the matter is those are her words. Those words indicate more than one person knew about the attack before it happened. This was not the work of a lone crazy person.

I just told someone else that false confessions are taken all the time in this country. Just because she said something to the police doesn't mean it was true. The media could very well of distorted what she said or what she meant as well.

a reply to: Chickensalad

Whatever.

a reply to: Nucleardoom

I do. We had a white kid kill a bunch of black kids. What did we do about that? You are literally talking about spending trillions of dollars for an unwinnable war. And then you will come back and blame the democratic president for getting us in such debt. What double standards you guys have.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
She gave material support to a terrorist.

This is beyond dispute, unless you are a krazy brainwashed zealot Muslim apologist.

Go after the rest of th family/cell as well.

Also known as a false dichotomy.

Also known as unconstitutional.

But, hey, let the authoritarian freek-flag fly!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable

Like I said, I'm not saying she's innocent. You guys may well be right here and she is criminally negligent, but what if she didn't say anything because she truly thought she could stop him without involving the authorities?

I admit I was judging her pretty harshly at first; but on second thought, it really depends on exactly what she knew and when she knew it. She may not have known specifics about where and when. Everything I've read on that has been grossly lacking in specifics.

It also occurs to me that as his wife she cannot be forced to testify against her husband, so perhaps it applies to turning him in as well, and that's tying the hands of the police.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable

Like I said, I'm not saying she's innocent. You guys may well be right here and she is criminally negligent, but what if she didn't say anything because she truly thought she could stop him without involving the authorities?

I admit I was judging her pretty harshly at first; but on second thought, it really depends on exactly what she knew and when she knew it. She may not have known specifics about where and when. Everything I've read on that has been grossly lacking in specifics.

It also occurs to me that as his wife she cannot be forced to testify against her husband, so perhaps it applies to turning him in as well, and that's tying the hands of the police.

She can't be compelled to testify, but she can make statements of her own will.

There are plenty of things that could mean.

Like?
What else does I tried to talk him out of the attack mean?

I'm trying not to interpret anything about it actually and am trying to convince others such as yourself to hold your judgement until further evidence is released. What happens, if she is cleared of all charges for legitimate reasons, but you refuse to believe it because you've convinced yourself that you are right here? You are just setting yourself up for failure when the smart course of action is to withhold judgment until all the facts are in.

Please point out where I have offered any judgement of this woman? I stated she was in deep trouble. You asked how so. I listed 2 charges that could be brought. I never said she is guilty of anything.
I am right. She admitted to the FBI that she tried to talk him out of the attack. That admission can carry the charges I listed.

I just told someone else that false confessions are taken all the time in this country. Just because she said something to the police doesn't mean it was true. The media could very well of distorted what she said or what she meant as well.

You , being so concerned with FACTS, would surely have evidence of a coerced confession from this lady? Do you as well have FACTUAL evidence of this lady lying to the police?(the story said she talked to the FBI perhaps you know something we all dont) Please list for me how the media can distort "I tried to talk him out of the attack"

9 simple words
She says she knew and tried to talk him out of it.
It is not as hard as you would like to make it. At least not this part of it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

She can't be compelled to testify, but she can make statements of her own will.

Definitely! I was just speaking to the legal aspect and why the cops may not be charging her. That doesn't in any way excuse her for not speaking up. That was her choice.

And maybe she did but no one listened. I don't recall anyone specifically saying that she did NOT notify LE. Wouldn't be the first time LE dropped the ball...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I know as much or more than you do, so stop pretending otherwise. You want to jump on the RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM™ bandwagon with the rest of your wingnut mates, that's fine and dandy. I don't and I'm not because none of the evidence points in that direction.

Hey buddy I think Mateen is driving that bandwagon when he himself calls 911 to profess his allegiance to ISIS. This factual evidence clearly points in a different direction though, right? Has everyone suddenly become retarded?

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
Has everyone suddenly become retarded?

Not suddenly, No.

How do you think we got here.