How can this judge say she is not a flight risk when she already fled right after the jihad massacre, and was in hiding for months?
The judiciary is in massive need of reform.
A judge’s decision to grant bail for the wife of a man who killed 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, pending her trial, has sparked outrage.
Noor Salman, widow of Omar Mateen, is accused of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting his material support to the so-called Islamic State.
A California federal judge said Ms Salman is not a flight risk or a danger to public safety.
But she agreed to hold the decision for two days as prosecutors appeal.
The June 2016 attack was the worst mass shooting in modern US history.
Orlando Police Chief John Mina said in a statement that he was “disappointed” by Wednesday’s move to free 31-year-old Ms Salman.
A survivor of the shooting, Chris Hansen, expressed shock at the decision.
“You’ve got people who are behind bars for selling marijuana but she might be allowed free, how does that make any sense?” he told the Orlando Sentinel.
“This whole situation is heartbreaking. It’s going to make it hard to sleep at night – again.”
Oakland-based Judge Donna Ryu ruled that Ms Salman could live with her uncle in northern California, but must wear an electronic ankle monitor.
The judge said there is no evidence the accused is directly linked to any terror groups, or that she personally holds extremist views.
She added that it was “debatable” whether the government had enough evidence to convict the accused.
Ms Salman’s lawyer, Linda Moreno, said it was “extraordinarily rare” for bail to be given in terrorism cases….