Posted in

Another San Bernardino Update

by Hondo••40

Well, we now know a bit more about what’s going on with Enrique Martinez – the guy who bought some of the weapons used by the two terrorist bastard murders who killed 14 and wounded 20+ in San Bernardino.

Specifically, we know that he and the deceased male terrorist bastard apparently discussed perpetrating an attack in the LA area back in 2012.  They backed out when another unrelated group of four got busted for a similar reason nearby.

I’m guessing that means that the deceased female terrorist bastard didn’t have to do much to radicalize her deceased husband.  But maybe I’m wrong.

We also know that Martinez either had converted or was in the process of converting to Islam.  Can’t say I’m surprised to hear that, either.

Finally, we now know that Martinez is cooperating with investigators, but is also expected to face charges in this case.  Both of those are IMO “good things”.

Personally, I hope he ends up facing capital charges – and since people were killed by the guns he allegedly supplied, gets the needle if convicted.  But maybe that’s just me.

You might also like

Surprise! Iraq would welcome US military assistance.

al Qaeda; contributions to medical science

A tour of MOAB Ground Zero

40 thoughts on “Another San Bernardino Update”

  1. Other reports describe Martinez as a bit of a dim bulb.. probably the epitome of a useful idiot. Today’s news says the couple were both radicalized and discussed jihad even before they were married. This was no spur-of-the-moment attack by anyone’s estimation.

      1. A 50/50 Raffle…one person gets to aim the .50 cal and another gets to pull the trigger.

        After of course, the weapon is thoroughly lubricated with bacon grease.

  3. “In the process?” IIRC “converting ” to Islam takes as long as speaking a single sentence: “there is no God but Allah and Mohammed was his prophet.” Presto. You’re a Muslim.

    1. That’s what the article said – “had either converted or was in the process of converting to Islam”. Don’t personally have any knowledge about the individual, so I can’t say from personal knowledge which it was.

      1. I’d only want to go if I could get good seats on the sideline somewhere to watch a good stampede and trampling.

  4. So…If this turd bought the guns as part of a straw sale and then supplied them to the two dead turds to commit a crime that means the two dead terrorists didn’t acquire their guns lawfully? I wonder why noone is bringing that up?

    1. He probably worked for, or had an association with Eric Holder. Or maybe he’s just as full of shit as Holder.

    2. Jonn brought it up in a previous article, Animal. But you’re correct in that I haven’t seen much about it elsewhere in the media.

      One possible reason is that proving it was a strawman purchase might be damned difficult, absent Martinez admitting to the crime or a 3rd-party witness. Both recipients are dead, and if Martinez sticks to the “I decided later I didn’t like or need the AR-15s” story, the case becomes circumstantial. Not impossible to prove, but much harder. The media may be staying away from that story line at least partly because of that.

      1. Or, the media dropped the story because there was no way to stretch the narrative to make these two a couple of TEA Party members? 🙂

      2. Oh, it was a purely rhetorical question aimed at gun control advocates. I don’t know why it’s even still being talked about at this point. The inability to enact gun control is the elephant in the room and saying inflammatory things makes them feel better at this point because their is no way the government will ever disarm this country. As many guns that are legally and illegally owned gun control is a moot point.

        1. Maybe I missed it, but my guess is the media isn’t touching this because the fuckwit who purchased the guns mentioned he identified as being a muzzie (or at least he had not yet uttered the “muck-muck-muck-muck” words required to complete the transition like Martinjmpr suggested).

        2. on the contrary, I think you are seeing a lot of “the guns were purchased legally” because the new talking points are that the current system is ineffective – so we need more and tighter controls. Supposedly at one point Martinez said the shooters did not want their names on the rifles so he bought them (which would make him a straw purchaser). In a way that makes no sense, though, because they DID personally buy the handguns. In any case, though, expect this o be used as a prime example of why universal background checks and registration is needed …. if it only saves one life, for the bu-bu-baybies, whatever.

          1. My local rag’s editorial page is full of gun control/gun registration/gun ban letters. The paper demands ‘polite discourse,’ so the minute anyone tries to discuss responsibility for the shooting, who the shooters were or who they were affiliated with, or the laws required to purchase guns and what straw purchases are, they’re banned. Oh, excuse me, that’s not polite enough. I meant to say they’re ‘moderated.’

            (And no, I don’t subscribe to it. I can look at some of it on line, for free.)

  5. It also appears that the murder’s older brother was married to Martinez’s wife’s sister, and both women are Russian immigrants, so there is also a familial relationship between the two. The murder’s brother is also a Navy veteran with GWOT service.

  7. I want this guy strung up by his fucking nutsack and shot down, but he’s cooperating, so it won’t be leading to the death penatly. Too bad he’s a citizen, or we could send his ass of to a black hole of a black site for the rest of his life. Piece of shit.

      1. Nah, he’d just get released and then become a leader for al Qaeda or another radical Islamic group somewhere.

  8. Silly question… but on the day of the attack in San Bernardino the radios/TVs etc were all reporting 3 shooters. Now by some miracle there were only 2 shooters… what happened to number 3? Individuals inside the building were reporting 3 shooters coming into the complex.

    2. They were reporting 3 shooters based on texts and cell phone calls from those inside. Confusion over the number of shooters by eye-witnesses is very common. They’re in fight or flight and aren’t trained observers. Same exact thing happened at Columbine. Different numbers, different descriptions, etc….

  9. “Radicalized”? WTF does that even mean? That the criminal is the victim? “He had nothing to do with it, he became radicalized!”

    1. From Mirriam Webster: radicalize: to make radical especially in politics

      Since “radicalize” is a transitive verb, “radicalized” would be the past tense form.

      It’s also applicable to religion as well as politics (and not exclusive to any particular religion; religious extremists exist in virtually all religions). Here’s an example:

      “Over time, the female religious extremist radicalized her formerly secular husband.”

      The application to the incident under discussion should be obvious.

    1. I’m sure THAT Rocket Surgeon will spend a lengthy amount of time as the “property” of Bubba & Thor, knowhutimean?

  11. ” … gets the needle if convicted.”

    Nah. It’s Kalifornia and even worse, 9th Circuit.

Comments are closed.