Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

Someone else posted another link than me to a clip where it sounds like PHones. Either they got it from a different source than my clip or their source or mine was suspicious. I used the youtube source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk#t=1m37s

It is definitely a K sound in the clip I made:

And the CNN clip was cleaned up in a state of the art studio by a professional sound engineer. What's your point?

 

[This is The End]

You may be imprinting in hindsight. There is no evidence that the dispatcher knew the future outcome, so his words read equally as 'We'll take it from here' out of concern for the caller getting hurt by the suspicious person. Or both.

It carries a little weight if there is a trial in that it subtracts from the reasonableness of a potential claim by Zimmerman that he needed to help the police.

Did you listen to it? You don't hear how the dispatcher's voice changed when he said the line?

 

[crimresearch]

What would that mean? The context makes zero sense to me. He had already called him an a hole.

What context would that mean when you hear the phone or the headset sliding and bumping... for him to say 'bleeping phones'?

Gosh, I can't possibly imagine, maybe he just realized he was late for his Neighborhood Watch meeting and was blaming Martin for that.

 

[This is The End]

And the CNN clip was cleaned up in a state of the art studio by a professional sound engineer. What's your point?

Do you have a link? You may note that I already said that in the very part you quoted:

Someone else posted another link than me to a clip where it sounds like PHones.

It's very likely that it is phones. That doesn't mean that whoever "cleaned it up in a state of the art studio" couldn't have made a mistake. Just not very likely.

 

[crimresearch]

Did you listen to it? You don't hear how the dispatcher's voice changed when he said the line?

Yes, and what I heard wasn't agitated, elevated, or upset, I heard a professional say 'Sir, we'll take it from here.

 

[This is The End]

Did you listen to it? You don't hear how the dispatcher's voice changed when he said the line?

Z even agrees to the "We don't need you to [follow him]". Z says Okay!

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Z: Yeah
Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that.
Z: Okay

 

[WildCat]

Can I ask you a favor? This is a really emotional subject for me and a lot of people here. A teenager was shot for no reason, and his parents are grieving. I don't know if you have some strong identification with George Zimmerman and you're just playing devil's advocate, but can you try to back off with the hostility and snark? I don't think I can engage with you if you're going to act this way.

This story feels like a punch in the gut to me.

I know, a lot of people here are operating on raw emotion rather than using critical thinking. The only side I'm on is what the facts and evidence leads to. I'm not emotionally vested in either side. Emotions cloud rational thinking.

This is still a critical thinking forum, if you make a claim you should support it with facts and evidence. That seems to have gone out the window in this thread, and speculation reigns here.

Zimmerman may be guilty, he may not be. But those who presume to know at this point, with what little information we have, are not thinking rationally.

 

[crimresearch]

Do you have a link? You may note that I already said that in the very part you quoted:



It's very likely that it is phones. That doesn't mean that whoever "cleaned it up in a state of the art studio" couldn't have made a mistake. Just not very likely.

Do I have the link I posted here an hour ago?

Why, yes I do, why do you ask?

 

[This is The End]

Yes, and what I heard wasn't agitated, elevated, or upset, I heard a professional say 'Sir, we'll take it from here.

The dispatchers voice changed on those points, he was serious.

 

[This is The End]

Do I have the link I posted here an hour ago?

Why, yes I do, why do you ask?

OK then that must not be it. This was linked at least 2 days ago. I'll try and find it.

Found it:

Here's an interesting link. Voice range equalized up, repeats three times with the third iteration slowed to 75% of speed, pitch preserved. Sounds like you are right to me.

I'll see if it's the same as your CNN link.

 

[crimresearch]

The dispatchers voice changed on those points, he was serious.

What is your point in pretending I ever said otherwise?
Or in repeating that I didn't listen to it, when I said I did?

 

[WildCat]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Zimmerman wasn't supposed to be following Martin, and especially not with a gun. He exceeded both the guidelines of his neighborhood watch program and the advisement of the police.

If Zimmerman's only intention was report Martin's location, he could have easily done that from his car as he knew he was supposed to. Instead, he chose to arm himself and pursue Martin. You don't get to flout the rules and then expect the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions.

Those rules carry no legal weight whatsoever, and ultimately have no bearing on whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense or murdered Martin in the heat of the moment because he lost a fight.

 

[This is The End]

What is your point in pretending I ever said otherwise?
Or in repeating that I didn't listen to it, when I said I did?

How does "The dispatchers voice changed on those points, he was serious." say either of those things?

Please link to where I was pretending you didn't agree.

As for the second sentence:

Are you referring to when I asked you if you listened to it? That does not mean that you didn't. I was asking for confirmation.

Forgive me for asking for clarification.

 

[Kestrel]

I don't think there are many experts in fields related to this investigation here, percentage-wise. Or that being one was a requirement for posting in this thread. I like to hear everyone's opinions. Sometimes it can shed light on something maybe even an expert didn't think of.

You don't have to be an expert on blood splatter to recognize that shooting someone who is on top of you is likely to get a bit messy.

 

[LTC8K6]

Phones, coons, goons, iirc you can't hear much unless you "enhance" the audio. On the original unaltered tape, you probably can't make anything out.

 

[This is The End]

Do I have the link I posted here an hour ago?

Why, yes I do, why do you ask?

OK i found your CNN / www.mediaite.com link.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-isolates-audio-on-alleged-‘fcking-cns’-trayvon-martin-911-call/

It appears to be a very long video. I don't have high speed internet and I only get 5gb per month. If someone could capture the sample they got, that would be great.

Or just let me know if it is the same as on RandFans soundcloud link from a few days ago.

http://soundcloud.com/kestrel9000/911clip

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The dispatchers voice changed on those points, he was serious.

I hope the 911 call taker was serious. 911 calls are generally a serious business.

BUT - At the risk of repeating myself: We've already covered GZ following TM. It's legal. He wan't given any kind of legal order not to follow him. If the police did not want him to do it, they could clearly have stated 'do not follow him' - yet they didn't.

Also, anyone can feel free to address:
From a legal standpoint, do you see anything wrong with following a stranger through your subdivision while concealed carrying ? I mean, theoretically , that's not illegal is it ? I t could be intimidating, provocative or confrontational - but is it illegal ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

explain your theory of the shooting

The questions about following in and out of the car aside for the moment. Assume GZ followed TM and got relatively close right before the shooting, and TM (on the phone with his GF) stopped, turned and asked
'why are you following me?' and GZ responded 'what are you doing here?'

Based on the information we have so far, what do you think happened next ?

 

[BStrong]

I hope the 911 call taker was serious. 911 calls are generally a serious business.

BUT - At the risk of repeating myself: We've already covered GZ following TM. It's legal. He wan't given any kind of legal order not to follow him. If the police did not want him to do it, they could clearly have stated 'do not follow him' - yet they didn't.

Also, anyone can feel free to address:
From a legal standpoint, do you see anything wrong with following a stranger through your subdivision while concealed carrying ? I mean, theoretically , that's not illegal is it ? I t could be intimidating, provocative or confrontational - but is it illegal ?

With my cop hat on, I'd say that for me there would have to be a very good reason for me to start following someone before I witnessed either suspicious or outright illegal activity.

If I recognized the individual as a bad actor and saw the individual in a situation that appeared to be in preperation for a crime, sure, but if I see a stranger walking along, there would have to be a strong indication of criminal activity for me to be interested in them.

This shooting looks and smells sketchy to me, but I don't know enough of the facts at this point to make a solid judgement.

 

[crimresearch]

I hope the 911 call taker was serious. 911 calls are generally a serious business.

BUT - At the risk of repeating myself: We've already covered GZ following TM. It's legal. He wan't given any kind of legal order not to follow him. If the police did not want him to do it, they could clearly have stated 'do not follow him' - yet they didn't.

Also, anyone can feel free to address:
From a legal standpoint, do you see anything wrong with following a stranger through your subdivision while concealed carrying ? I mean, theoretically , that's not illegal is it ? I t could be intimidating, provocative or confrontational - but is it illegal ?

No it would only be illegal if you were specifically told to leave the property by an owner or tenant and refused. Then you would be in violation of the FL trespass statute.