Lion of the Blogosphere

Enrique Marquez charged with crimes

Based on Washington Post article.

Charged with “conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.” What does that even mean? It’s not a conspiracy unless there is more than one person involved. Since Farook and the wife were the terrorists, and it doesn’t make sense that they could conspire to support themselves, then who did Farook conspire with? Why isn’t he just charged with “providing material support to terrorists”?

Furthermore, I still get the impression that Marquez is a low-IQ loser who had no idea what he was doing, and just had the misfortune of having the wrong friends who took advantage of him. All of the material he bought for Farook and his wife they could have bought for themselves legally. And even I, very knowledgeable in the law, wouldn’t have known that it’s illegal to give a gun to your friend. Maybe this is a holdover from living in Arizona where they had very liberal gun laws.

Marquez’s low IQ is evident based on the fact that he told everything to the FBI. If he had kept his mouth shut and lawyered up, they’d have zero on him.

Why isn’t the mother being prosecuted? Surely the mother knew what was going on in the garage. Why isn’t she also guilty of failing to inform law enforcement that her son was a terrorist?

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 17, 2015 at 6:06 pm

Posted in Law

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “Furthermore, I still get the impression that Marquez is a low-IQ loser who had no idea what he was doing, and just had the misfortune of having the wrong friends ”

    That would describe most criminals.

    Dan

    December 17, 2015 at 7:00 pm

  2. If you get the attention of authorities, you are vulnerable. Everything about you can be known, good or bad, then there’s a law to make you wish you did it their way.

    cesqy

    December 17, 2015 at 7:02 pm

  3. I feel Marquez would be found guilty.

    Lion, what is your impression about (K)ike Marquez’ knowledge of the Farook’s intentions?

    Latias

    December 17, 2015 at 7:59 pm

  4. Do you think he will be sentenced for abetting Farrok?

    Latias

    December 17, 2015 at 8:30 pm

  5. The Oregon shooter’s wiki says he had white supremacist leanings and “animosity toward black men”. Maybe his mother should be interviewed to clear this up.

    jef

    December 17, 2015 at 9:48 pm

  6. The feds are pretty good at convicting associates of terrorists. Marquez was a dead duck whether he talked or not.

    George

    December 17, 2015 at 10:32 pm

  7. Duuh! The mother is not being prosecuted because she is a muslim immigrant! Prosecuting her would just make Trump look good. Better to prosecute the native dimwit so the pretrial publicity can all be about how he provided the terrorists with “assault weapons” which Obama says are insufficiently banned in California!

    Don’t you know, rifles which conform exactly to the strictures of California’s “assault weapon” ban law so they can be legally sold in Federally- and State-licensed gun stores, Obama and Feinstein say are “evading” that law. They truly don’t care about logical consistency– the American left has been on a gun-control crusade since the F.D.R. administration (the 1934 National Firearms Act was the first Federal gun-ban law; it is still in effect).

    Piper

    December 18, 2015 at 1:48 am

  8. The claim is the Marquez and Farook were planning some kind of terrorist attack in 2012. Marquez originally bought the guns for that attack, but he apparently back out of that attack after the FBI arrested some men in Riverside for supporting terrorism.

    As far as I can see, the only evidence of this is Marquez told this to the FBI.

    Where did Marquez get the money to buy the guns? Did he get it from Farook? That might have violated laws against straw purchases. He also apparently violated a law by transferring the gun to Farook without reporting it. I believe this is a California law and not a federal law.

    I suspect at this point they just want to arrest him and charge him with something. Later on they will figure out what to actually charge him with.

    mikeca

    December 18, 2015 at 1:50 am

  9. “It’s not a conspiracy unless there is more than one person involved.”

    No American legal training here, but wouldn’t that only hold in the semantic sense? Conspiring just means “plotting”, which can be done on your own. Or maybe they’re doing a bit of sleight of hand; they might say that he conspired with the husband to help the wife, and/or vice versa. Or maybe there are parties they haven’t mentioned yet.

    Jesse

    December 18, 2015 at 6:57 am

    • So you are saying it means that he didn’t actually support terrorists, he merely planned to support them? Sounds like a thought-crime to me.

      In America, “conspiracy” means a plan by more than one person.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 18, 2015 at 8:32 am

      • “So you are saying it means that he didn’t actually support terrorists, he merely planned to support them? Sounds like a thought-crime to me.”

        Well, yeah. But the case that came to mind was a surgeon in Indiana was sentenced to 10 years for what appears to have been talking about killing his ex-wife without actually doing anything about it:

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-bizarre-case-indiana-surgeon-accused-plotting-wifes/story?id=33800834

        But you’re right, conspiracy would be deeply weird unless it’s conspiring with the shooters themselves.

        Jesse

        December 18, 2015 at 8:49 am

      • He’s charged with conspiring with Farook in 2012 for an attack that never took place. I’m surprised they aren’t charging him with attempted murder.

        steve@steve.com

        December 18, 2015 at 8:58 am

      • A crime that’s difficult to prove in court because there’s no evidence besides his own testimony (talk about low IQ! telling that stuff to the police).

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 18, 2015 at 11:03 am

      • It appears that the guy is just talking sh*t out of his mouth.

        JS

        December 18, 2015 at 11:05 am

      • I feel sorry for him in some sense. But I wonder what amount of pressure the FBI applied to him to get him to talk about the previous terror plot. I doubt he would talk freely as admitting actively plotting an attack is not something one would admit to the authorities, but it was “low IQ” of him not to have an attorney present during questioning. .

        Latias

        December 18, 2015 at 5:43 pm

  10. They may be holding back the more serious charge (actually providing support) to use as leverage in getting him to talk.

    Anthony

    December 18, 2015 at 9:39 am

  11. He provided the weapons. He’s also being charged with immigration violations related to the fake marriage to the Russian.

    dsgntd_plyr

    December 18, 2015 at 1:08 pm

  12. Read the indictment. It’s on a website called Scribd.

    gothamette

    December 18, 2015 at 1:46 pm

  13. “Why isn’t the mother being prosecuted? Surely the mother knew what was going on in the garage. Why isn’t she also guilty of failing to inform law enforcement that her son was a terrorist?”

    This is the really important question, and I think the only answers can be 1. The Feds are hopelessly incompetent; 2. The White House is aiding and abetting muslim terrorism; 3. Both.

    Two in the Bush

    December 19, 2015 at 12:50 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: