May 10 2012
Concealed Weapons Are Not License To Play Cop
A lot of my readers do not understand why I have such confidence in the fact George Zimmerman was rightly charged in the death of Trayvon Martin. Most of their angst is due to the fact they let politics enter into their thinking and – whether they admit it or not – they don’t want Al Sharpton to be even partially right on this. So they defend the indefensible.
Personally I could care less about Sharpton. Whether he is right or wrong has no bearing on this. What does matter is how the incident played out and what are the laws when it comes to concealed weapons and the right to stand your ground.
Some background is in order, because I am not naive to these kinds of situations. I have had a gun pulled on me, and one threatened to be pulled on me. A passenger in my car pulled a knife on some guys harassing us late at night, and I hung out on the wrong side of the tracks at times. Sadly these kinds of incidents are not unknown to me.
There are two kinds of gun owners: (1) the quiet and serious type and (2) the show-offs covering up for their insecurity. Zimmerman strikes me as the latter. Zimmerman has a history of using excessive force in his role as bouncer – on a woman yet. That is not the act of a confident and in control person.
The guy who pulled the gun on me was a classic gun-toting idiot with delusions of grandeur.
The picture above is a loose representation of my encounter with the insecure, show-off types. I was in my car and – get this – merging onto a highway (Rt 66 in Northern Virginia). There was one other vehicle on the highway within site. It was a pickup truck and he was in the right lane – the lane I needed to merge into. My timing was perfect. I came down the ramp a little ahead of him and started to accelerate.
Then the idiot in the truck started to accelerate, too. I was driving a Pontiac Trans Am – so I accelerated even more and got onto the empty highway in front of this upstanding citizen.
Apparently, my getting in front was too much for this guy. Like Zimmerman when he ‘snapped as a bouncer and threw a woman against the wall, this guy felt the empty two lane highway was not big enough for the two of us (as I recall it was a Sunday morning when this happened). So “Joe Good Citizen” comes right up on my bumper. I tapped the brakes to warn him off with the lights – not slowing down at all.
And the fool was caught off guard! He hits his breaks way too hard and starts to lose control of the car (he already had lost control of his temper). He does recover, but now he is really pissed. I moved to the left lane and the guy pulled up on my right – now with his gun out and pointed at me.
I was not really panicked but more amused, so I simply hit my breaks, swung in behind him and took down his license plate. I then turned him into the police who went to visit our foolish gunslinger. He claimed the gun fell off the seat and he simply picked it up – never brandishing it. The cops did not buy it and he was charged.
I tried to make the court hearing, but did not make it. I have no idea what happened, but this fool went from full on arrogant to blabbering apologist in 2 seconds when the real law showed up. And he was making up all sorts of BS the entire time.
Today in Florida he would have committed what is called Assault with a Deadly Weapon. If the gun had fired and I died, it would be manslaughter – or worse.
Here is one of thousands of like incidents that occur all over the country all year:
Jeffrey Craig Hatcher also was charged with two counts each of felony aggravated assault and terroristic threats in connection with the incident shortly before 4:30 p.m.
…
The 48-year-old Hatcher told the deputy he is a security guard who carries a firearm as part of his job, and that the gun was in the center console of the Tahoe. The deputy retrieved a .38-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver and a guard’s badge.
The two men in the Chevy accused Hatcher of pointing a chrome revolver at them, but Hatcher denied displaying a gun, the incident report said. Hatcher told deputies that he had tried to pass the other car, but it would not let him pass. He was placed under arrest.
This guy has some legal reason to have a gun on him outside the home, and he was correctly arrested for misusing it. These incidents involved just the threat of a gun, and the punishment is harsh. Use it and things get much worse. Kill someone and you are in deep trouble. So you better have a bullet-proof excuse – or else.
I grew up around guns. I like using them and have been trained since a wee lad on what to do and not do. I proudly live in a state that allows concealed weapons, one that also has severe punishments for misuse of those weapons by civilians. I believe in both the right and responsibility. I have low tolerance for fools with guns – they play right into the gun control zealots hands.
Also, my family has its shares of law enforcement members. From police chief, mayor, state and federal prosecutor, judge and US congressman we have a deep understanding of where those lines of legal behavior are. More than most.
Here is a very, very important statement from the government of Florida regarding concealed weapons and why Zimmerman is in the trouble he is in:
To carry a concealed firearm is to take on an immense responsibility. It is very important to understand that a license to carry a concealed weapon does not give the license holder discretionary authority to use that weapon. It is my sincere hope that you will never find it necessary to use your weapon in self-defense; however, if circumstances require you to do so, you should know that the law will protect you only if your actions in using deadly force have been consistent with the law.
Emphasis mine. Zimmerman has no right to use the weapon – even in self defense. Yes, he can try the self defense angle, but it is not a given it will work. And most likely it will not work in this case.
First off, Zimmerman was not in a defensive position through most of the event. He was not being attacked by Martin, who was walking through the neighborhood eating candy and talking on the phone. This fact cannot be dismissed or ignored. When the incident began Zimmerman was not in danger. He put himself into the situation against the wishes of Martin.
Zimmerman was not in a self defense situation when he got out of his car – armed – and tried to chase down Martin. At this point in the sequence of events, it is Martin who is in the self defense position because he is the one being chased by an armed man. Zimmerman has no authority to go after someone armed. None.
The threat is real in Martin’s mind and backed up apparently by testimony of the girlfriend on the phone. Zimmerman has no “right to stand” from here on – but Martin does.
Martin tries to flee, Zimmerman continues to chase for many minutes and against police direction. Zimmerman is also angry at Martin without any hard evidence – it is all a state of mind for Zimmerman.
This is the law as applied equally to Zimmerman and Martin. When the physical conflict finally occurs, Zimmerman has been chasing and Martin has been fleeing. The encounter could have been avoided if Zimmerman stayed in his truck, waited for police and followed their directions. Remember the warning above:
if circumstances require you to do so, you should know that the law will protect you only if your actions in using deadly force have been consistent with the law.
Zimmerman’s actions up to the confrontation are not consistent with self defense. You cannot create a conflict and then claim the conflict threatened you.
I now want to point to this part of the Florida statutes:
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
This is also a very key statute. Zimmerman cannot use the fact he is armed to detain or question Martin. He cannot use the threat of a gun to detain Martin. There must be some evidence that has pushed the prosecutor to go from manslaughter to 2nd degree murder. And my hunch is that extra evidence is the fact Zimmerman brandished the gun to try and alpha-male Martin.
I also have serious doubts that the gun was in Zimmerman’s waist band when he pulled it – being on his back and pinned down by Martin. Take that for what it is worth, but to pull a gun under such conditions is really hard.
The gun could have been pulled, which then created the physical altercation as Martin used his right to stand. It would explain a scenario where Martin is screaming for help, even though he is winning the physical battle. It would also explain why Martin was being so hard on Zimmerman. The presence of a gun would make bashing Zimmerman unconscious a smart and prudent plan of defense.
What we don’t know is if the presence of the gun was made known prior to the physical altercation. And this is where the testimony of Trayvon’s girlfriend is probably the key. If Zimmerman let it be known he was armed, then the self defense claim goes all the way to Martin and Zimmerman is in serious trouble.
He cannot use self defense when he makes the threat of harm.
I will end this with some sage advice from someone on Free Republic:
* YOUR CONCEALED WEAPON IS FOR PROTECTION OF LIFE ONLY.
Draw it solely in preparation to protect yourself or an innocent third party from the wrongful and criminal activities of another.
* KNOW EXACTLY WHEN YOU CAN USE YOUR WEAPON.
A criminal adversary must have or reasonably appear to have:
A. The ABILITY to inflict serious bodily injury. He is armed or reasonably appears to be armed.
B. The OPPORTUNITY to inflict serious bodily harm. He is positioned to harm you with his weapon, and,
C. His INTENT (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place you in jeopardy – to do you serious or fatal physical harm.
You cannot be wrong on these matters when the weapon discharges. There has to be a real threat, not one in your head. It will be impossible for Zimmerman (who was armed) to claim Martin was a threat at any time before the final, physical altercation – which Zimmerman instigated by following Martin.
One last item. People don’t understand how Zimmerman and Martin finally connected up after Zimmerman lost Martin (who was between the buildings) as Zimmerman walked over to the far parking lot. Minutes went by and they should have not re-engaged.
Except Martin probably hung out outside his house, and when the coast appeared to be clear, went back to walking and talking to his girlfriend. Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck after losing Martin. That is how they fatefully met the last time. But that will not save Zimmerman from his responsibilities as the armed person, nor his many opportunities to avoid conflict.
If he only stayed in or with his truck – as directed by police. And that is the essence of this case.
AJ,
Why are you doubling down on this jihad against Zimmerman?
The facts as known in the media now, support Zimmerman’s story.
AJ:
Projection?
“Zimmerman has no right to use the weapon – even in self defense. ” Where do you get that ? Of course he has the right to use his gun in self-defense if (and only if) he truly believed that his life was in danger.
A scenario has been put forward, supported to some extent by the “facts” as reported by the media, that Martin doubled back, confronted Zimmerman, and then attacked him. In this scenario the jury must weigh degrees of culpability and decide how much each party is “responsible” for the outcome. I have always said that I believe Zimmerman owns some of the responsibility because his actions, to a point, led up to the confrontation. But if Martin really did double back and attack Zimmerman then the balance of the “responsibility equation” changes significantly.
AJ: Some guy is on top of you, punching you, banging your head on the concrete. You think he may kill you. Are you really going to say, “Well, I better not use my gun because this guy had a legit reason to confront me?” Answer that question, please.
No layman, he does not have a ‘right’. And no, he cannot be paranoid or simply claim it was self defense. He as to prove it.
In a very odd quirk of the law in this case (where the shooting and death are not in debate), Zimmerman has to prove he was – of no fault of his own – in deadly danger.
Truth is, he was not in deadly danger (kid, unarmed) and it was all his actions and decisions that brought the incident to a head.
Losing a fight you start is not self defense. Sorry – that is a well established fact. Stop trying to play Perry Mason, you’re no good at it.
dbostan,
What does it matter what the media says? I am not doubling down – I am responding to silly challenges to the law. If you don’t want responses, don’t make claims.
Zimmerman is in trouble. Deep trouble. And any too naive not to understand this NEEDS to know the truth of these matters. This is how you stay out of trouble, by learning.
dbostan:
and nothing in AJ’s post above disputes any of that. His experience of someone pointing a gun at him on an expressway will not be evidence in the case against Zimmerman.
“The guy who pulled the gun on me was a classic gun-toting idiot with delusions of grandeur.” but this will not be allowed as evidence that Zimmerman was.
“I tried to make the court hearing, but did not make it. I have no idea what happened, but this fool went from full on arrogant to blabbering apologist in 2 seconds when the real law showed up”
So, you were with the police when they went to question him?
“why I have such confidence in the fact George Zimmerman was rightly charged in the death of Trayvon Martin” fact? def: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:
Won’t we only know if it’s a ‘fact’ when the verdict is rendered?
Part of the governor’s statement was:” It is my sincere hope that you will never find it necessary to use your weapon in self-defense; ”
“Zimmerman has no right to use the weapon – even in self defense” Really?
Isn’t self defense the very reason that persons have CCP? If a weapon is not legal to use in self defense, it seems kind of pointless to have one.
“And my hunch is “, “What we don’t know is if”,” Except Martin probably hung out”, “The gun could have been pulled”, “If Zimmerman let it be known”, “One last item. People don’t understand how”, “That is how they fatefully met the last time”,
Whew, hunch? if? probably? could have?, If?, don’t understand?
“Zimmerman continues to chase for many minutes” According to the unredacted tape, approximately 20 seconds from 2:14-2:28
Martin started running while Zimmerman was still in his truck at 2:08 and Zimmerman left his truck at 2:14.
“If he only stayed in or with his truck – as directed by police.” There is no direction by the police to remain in or with his truck in the ‘unredacted’ tape I linked to yesterday. I never heard the police ‘direct’ him to do anything. at one time they said to him “we don’t need you to do that”
I continue to believe that there is no evidence that will convict Zimmerman of anything, if so, some of it would have been leaked to the press by now.
Where is that cell phone?
“And no, he cannot be paranoid or simply claim it was self defense. He as to prove it.”
er, ah, I thought the prosecution had to prove it’s case, not the defense.
RT – see what I mean about naive? Zimmerman admitted to the killing, the carrying the gun, stalking Martin…
Zimmerman has to prove he was in mortal danger when he pulled the trigger. He is not innocent of the killing (which is where the burden of proof comes in).
Martin has rights too. He has the right to stand his ground. He has the right to walk around unmolested.
See you think just because some fool claims self defense he gets it.
When someone kills and pleads insanity, where is the burden of proof?
It is on the defendant! This is not any different. Zimmerman must prove he was justified to kill.
thus endeth the lesson.
If Zimmerman is smart, he is working a plea deal.
RT – denial runs deep on you!
LOL! Where did I say my experience had any bearing on Zimmerman’s case? It points to knowing more about these things than you do!
RT,
Boy, I just can’t resist the silliness of your ‘logic’.
Martin is the only one with clear right to self defense. Zimmerman was not home or in his car (where most self defense claims with a gun succeed) nor was Martin after him.
CCP’s are there for when trouble is thrust upon you, not when you throw yourself into trouble.
Go back and realize that a ‘self defense’ defense is just like a plea of insanity. The burden of proof is on the accused.
AJ, why after a two week investigation, did the Sanford Police, find that there was no cause for arrest?
AJ, as I pointed out, your post is full of ‘ifs, ands, buts, hunches, guesses, etc.
You are the one that discussed your experience with a nut, suggesting it has something to do with this case. I just don’t see any parallel.
” Martin is the only one with clear right to self defense”
huh? clear right? oh, I get it, you’re ‘guessing’ that Zimmerman is the attacker and that makes a ‘clear right’ for Martin. OK, but, you could just as easily guess that Martin is the attacker, there is just as much evidence that way and in that case Zimmerman would have this ‘clear right’.
“RT – denial runs deep on you!” gotta laugh here, only one of us has stated who is ‘guilty’ here. I only say that there is not enough evidence now in the public domain that would convict anyone. You are absolutely convinced ‘because that’s what nuts on the freeway do’ that Zimmerman is guilty.
“It points to knowing more about these things than you do!” Are you jumping to another conclusion here? that I have never had a gun pointed at me on a highway, therefore I can’t understand gun nuts? That’s a pretty big leap there, but not really much larger than the leap that Martin is innocent.
the gunman is accused of killing someone in a 2nd degree murder case. the obligation is on the prosecution to prove that he murdered the person in the 2nd degree. The defense is free to claim whatever defense they choose. If they choose to claim self defense, while they are free to prove the self defense, that does not alter the fact that the prosecution still has to prove the 2nd degree charge.
And all my legal training says that is true.
“Zimmerman admitted to the killing, the carrying the gun, stalking Martin” I certainly have never claimed that Zimmerman didn’t kill Martin. Just that there is no evidence that he did it without reason.
If you are willing to accept Zimmerman’s statement that he killed him, why are you not willing to accept that the version of the story he told is true? If you don’t believe one statement, doesn’t that cast doubt on any statement?
I’ve never had formal training in ‘silliness of logic’, I take credit for that on my own.
“Martin is the only one with clear right to self defense. Zimmerman was not home or in his car (where most self defense claims with a gun succeed) nor was Martin after him.
I am glad that I learned of this legal concept. There are a lot of people that I though needed a whuping, but I thought they might kill me before I finished. Now I know that they are fair game as long as thay aren’t in their car or their house.
If Zimmerman had just allowed himself to be beaten to death, he could have died in the “right”. It could also be noted that had he died “in the right” his genes would (rightly)never have been projected into the future. Only survivor genes get passed to progeny and into the future.
Hey, what is this car business? Why aren’t they fair game in the car as well? They willingly left their house. That ws their choice and their mistake. I think there should be no right to self defense in a car either.
Signed;
Carjacker
Text of “Florida’s Stand your Ground” law: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter776
Even assuming that Zimmerman is found to have provoked the incident he still has a defense under the law:
“776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.”
I’d say that someone sitting on your chest pounding your head on the ground (if that’s what actually happened) has a good chance of qualifying for 2a. What a jury will say is, of course, unpredictable.
Marsh, let me venture an answer to your question.
“why after a two week investigation, did the Sanford Police, find that there was no cause for arrest?”
I’m just guessing that there was not enough evidence.
Now, ask another question:
Why, after further inflammation of the story and the appointment of a ‘special prosecutor’ with an agenda to get re-elected in an unopposed election, did they suddenly find evidence, which still has not been made public, that was sufficient to bring a charge of 2nd degree murder?
My answer: Racial politics.
but that may be my ‘silliness in logic ‘ coming thru.
soupy:
I’m sorry, but you’re gonna have to clear that up a little.
are you saying that if I draw a gun on you and you start to beat me up and I surrender and throw down the gun and you continue to beat me up and maybe even get on top of me and start pounding my head onto a concrete sidewalk and I can accidentally can get a hold of my gun again that I still don’t have the ‘right’ to use that gun? Is that what you’re saying? Are you saying that even if you continue until I’m dead that I never did again acquire the right to defend myself?
Well, ok, I’ll take your word for it. At least I did have the right to let myself be beaten to death… some rights are better than none, I guess.
“If Zimmerman had just allowed himself to be beaten to death, he could have died in the “right”.”
If only. It’s way better to be right than dead.
Redteam, that was going to be my follow up question. lol
“I’d say that someone sitting on your chest pounding your head on the ground (if that’s what actually happened) has a good chance of qualifying for 2a.”
Soupy, I’d also say that if someone were trying to suffocate you or tried to reach for your gun, which became exposed during your beat down, I’d say you had an excellent chance of qualifying for 2a as well.
I have additional mirrors on both side mirrors of my car. They are called ‘fish eyes,’ to assist the driver in seeing ‘blind spots.’ I would say, AJ, that you might need one of these in order to see the blind spots in your own subjective appraisal of this incident.
You obviously have an issue with Zimmerman, noxiously painting him as a vigilante, and referring to him either ‘stalking’ or ‘chasing’ Martin, when Zimmerman’s own words indicate he was following an unknown man to keep an eye on him until the police arrived. Again, I bring up the recent break-ins around that gated community, lending reason on ‘keeping an eye on’ a young stranger who appeared to be loitering around the neighborhood.
However, as you color Zimmerman as some out-of-control instigator, you also seem to use benign language when describing Martin — like he was a harmless lad, just eating skittles, talking to his girlfriend, and that’s it. There still remains a question of culpability on Martin’s part, as he had choices on whether to directly go home or confront the person who was following him. Why aren’t Martin’s choices as much a component leading to an avoidable altercation, as you charge Zimmerman’s choices were, in choosing to get out of his vehicle and follow a suspicious stranger?
Furthermore, carrying a gun does give pause as to why Zimmerman felt the need to do this, when deciding to follow Martin. However, I know when we had a home invasion two blocks from my home, I took a heavy flashlight with me for months, whenever I took out the trash, just in case I met up with an unforseen situation, so I could fight back. What is that about an ounce of prevention….So, taking into consideration the recent crime wave in the area, it doesn’t seem either implausible or particularly ‘wild eyed’ to put to use the right to carry a firearm when checking out someone who, in your opinion, was acting strangely.
Then you have the eye-witness account of a red-shirted person being on the ground with someone bashing their head on the cement. You don’t seem to give this part of the scenario much credence either, as to a reason why the red-shirted man might feel his life, or at least his head, was in some kind of danger, which would at least put a kink into assuming it was nothing but ‘silliness’ to think that Zimmerman’s defense could be anything other than toast.
AJ,
You believe what you believe, right. Please consider that you may be wrong on this one.
The following was at the ‘Conservative Tree House’ blogger site. This site has made a crusade of investigating the Trayvon Martin shooting. One of their posts includes the following from a medical transcriptionist on the publicly available audio.
Key passage:
But it’s entirely possible that in this audio, St. Trayvon of Skittles has shown himself to be an edgy, hair-trigger, foul-mouthed gangsta, cursing and snarling threats at a guy who was doing nothing more threatening than sitting in his vehicle and talking on his cell phone. And if that’s true, it’s gonna make it kind of hard to argue that GZ was the one looking for trouble that night.
Link:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/08/audio-trained-treeper-and-a-couple-of-notes/#more-39214
Text from the medical transcriptionist:
Now for the Treeper audio tip:
A Treeper trained in the professional art of transcription read a concern expressed by another engaged and curious mind, justice 099, then forwarded their consideration and analysis to us on the tip line (e-mail). We cannot chase down or research every tip, and need to prioritize (but keep them all coming please). However, this one is supportive of an earlier Treeper inquiry and we thought it worth sharing for discussion: From BRON
I ran across this site about a week ago and have been visiting it every day since, hardly able to believe what I’ve been reading here, except that I HAVE to believe it b/c y’all document this stuff so thoroughly.
I gotta say that you treepers are a very remarkable bunch. Mighty fine investigative work going on here, mighty fine indeed. And plenty of humor too. Love it!
OK, so…assuming the moderators approve me and also assuming I can navigate to the right place to post this, I want to talk for a moment about the “ghost voice” that justice099 heard (Update #17) on GZ’s call reporting TM as a suspicious character – b/c I ‘m here to tell you that I heard something even more startling than “justice” did.
In fact, when I finally realized what I was hearing, I ripped off my headset and shot my chair away from the computer as if I thought the owner of that ghostly voice was going to come through the Internet and make good its threat.
If you’re the impatient type, go ahead and jump to the bottom of this post to find out what I heard, but I hope the rest of you will bear with me for a minute or two while I explain why I believe I’m likely to be hearing right.
Obviously, the more you hear of a person’s voice, the better able you are to discern what they’re saying even when the audio is crappy, so (like the rest of you) I’m at a disadvantage b/c I have no other audio of Trayvon Martin.
On The Other Hand, I do have a slight advantage over most (if not all) of you in this regard because I happen to be a medical transcriptionist, which means that I spend hours listening to less-than-perfect audio and gleaning crucial information from it.
And when I say less-than-perfect, well, you know how bad most doctors’ handwriting is, right? Well, believe me, their dictation style can be even worse!
There are docs who dictate while eating crunchy food, while driving (I used to have one who dictated while driving a convertible with the top down), while using the toilet (I kid you not), while having lunch in the hospital cafeteria, and once I even had one who was dictating on a plane as his flight took off. There are doctors who shove the microphone so far down their throats that it must be tickling their tonsils, and others who whisper their dictation from the other side of the room.
Through all this chaos, it’s my job to hear whether they’re saying alfentanil or fentanyl, clonidine or Klonopin, dysphasia or dysphagia (try saying those 2 out loud – very few people can enunciate the difference even when they’re trying to), a typical chest pain or atypical chest pain, etc etc.
My ears have been tuned the hard way, and if I sound a little crazy at times, believe me, I’ve earned it.
You, however, are definitely not crazy, justice099, because I hear the “ghost voice” too, and I thank you so much for posting this because although I had read what I believe was the official transcript of the call, I hadn’t got around to listening to the audio.
It was illuminating, to say the least. The “ghost voice” starts around 1:37, and just after GZ says “Okay” (and before he says “These assholes, they always get away,”) I hear the voice say “Fu-u-uck.” (Is it possible that GZ is sighing this under his breath? Yes…except that the voice is heard again, overlapping with his, so I’m inclined to rule out that possibility.)
Just after GZ says that they get away, I hear the voice snarling, “Bastard! Faggot!” There was so much hate in that voice that I gotta admit it made the hair on the back of my neck prickle. (I’m not very conversant with modern thugspeak so I don’t know how likely they are to call someone a faggot, and perhaps an argument could be made for “Cracker!” instead, but “Faggot!” is what I hear.)
Where I had a problem was hearing “motherf*cker” next. No disrespect fo justice099 because the *ucker was definitely there, and the first part of the word certainly began with an M sound and ended with an R sound, but those first 2 syllables were pronounced with an odd distinctness and drawn out just a shade too long – almost as if the speaker was saying, “Read my lips. MUH…ther..FUKK…er.”
And that first syllable…hang on, it sounds more like MUD than MUTH – no, wait, that’s not just a short U sound, there’s an R sound in there too. Not MUTH, not MUD, but MURD. Not MUH…ther..FUKK…er but MURD…er..FUKK..er. Murder-*ucker? Holy crap, MURDER??? (That’s the spot where I ricocheted away from the desk.)
And the gap between the first 2 syllables and the last 2…Is he saying “Murdering *ucker”? No, that makes no sense b/c there’s been no violence yet. But there’s definitely an almost soundless fraction of a second there, just 1 syllable that I can’t quite hear.
Or can I? Yes, I think I got it now. He’s saying, “…murder you, sucker!” (or “f*cker” – very hard to distinguish between S and F sounds). So the fractional pause before “murder” probably means that the complete phrase is “Gonna MUR-der you, SUCKer!” (or perhaps “Imma MUR-der you, SUCKer!”)
Go listen to the audio:
(headphones – even cheap ones – will be a huge help), starting around 1:37, and see if you hear it now. If you hear what I hear from that ghostly, vicious whisper, maybe your blood will run as cold as mine did.
Of course, if that really is TM’s voice, it does seem odd, on the face of it, that GZ doesn’t say anything about it to the dispatcher, but I can think of 3 possible explanations. (1) GZ didn’t actually hear the words that TM was mouthing at him from outside the vehicle (I think we can safely assume that the truck’s windows would have been rolled up as soon as he saw TM approaching, if not before) so he didn’t feel there was anything specific to report, but the mike was so sensitive that it recorded most of the unheard words, or (2) the voice was so clear to GZ inside the vehicle that he assumed the dispatcher could hear it too, so there was no need to say anything further, or (3) he didn’t want to inflame the situation by describing what was happening in case TM was able to overhear him “snitching” to the cops.
Well, for a first post, this was certainly a loquacious one, wasn’t it? But I’ll be interested to know what anyone else can hear.
As has been suggested, this may not be TM’s voice at all. Maybe it’s a “bleed” from another call. Or maybe if I heard a cleaned-up and enhanced audio, I’d hear something different. As justice099 has said and/or implied, we need more confirmation on this before we can consider it a fact.
But it’s entirely possible that in this audio, St. Trayvon of Skittles has shown himself to be an edgy, hair-trigger, foul-mouthed gangsta, cursing and snarling threats at a guy who was doing nothing more threatening than sitting in his vehicle and talking on his cell phone. And if that’s true, it’s gonna make it kind of hard to argue that GZ was the one looking for trouble that night.
Feedback, anyone?
BRON
Trent,
I always consider I may be wrong. I have tried to find a REAL angle that could switch this to Zimmerman. But each one comes against this hard fact – he is being prosecuted and so they may have something, and we won’t know what until trial.
If there was something culpable, then it would have been presented by Zimmerman’s lawyers and the case would be tossed. That did NOT happen. So pretending there is some magic fact that removes the responsibility from Zimmerman onto Martin is not likely.
Not to be too blunt, but Martin is also presumed innocent until proven he was the attacker. Zimmerman has chosen a very weak and (in my mind) unattainable defense to prove.
LOL! Trent -Sir St Skittles???
Gimme a break. Why not get your law degree from the National Enquirer.
Dude, you have no idea how many credibility points you just threw away.