Skip to main content

A Retired Officer's Account — Shot From Below, Not Straight In

What This Video Is​

Five minutes and twelve seconds, posted to X by @MuppetMasher on 2026-06-23. Source post: x.com/MuppetMasher/status/2069350461573046382.

The video itself is a single street interview, recorded by an unidentified outlet on a sidewalk near a busy road on the afternoon of September 10, 2025, with a short clip of a different witness spliced in at the very top. Over the first eighty seconds the poster has laid campaign graphics, a social-media screenshot and stills over the interview. Those overlays are the poster's own addition, not part of the original footage.

Two things about the packaging need stating plainly, because they change how the material should be read.

The overlays make accusations that this site does not carry. The poster's caption and inserted graphics assert that the on-camera witnesses in the early UVU interviews were connected to one another and to named Utah political figures, and characterise them in strongly derogatory terms. Those are the poster's unproven allegations about living people. They are not reproduced here, they are not endorsed, and nothing on this page should be read as supporting them. What is carried forward from this clip is the witness testimony itself, attributed to the person who gave it.

The stored visual description of this file is wrong on one important point. It states that the interviewee identifies "the suspected shooter." She does not. She says twice, unprompted, that she is not saying the man she recognised was the shooter. That correction matters and is worked through below.

What Is Said​

The opening fragment (0:00 to about 0:14). A female witness, unnamed in this cut, repeats the same phrase three times over: "It was a direct shot to the heart. It looked like it was a direct shot to the heart. It looked like, right where his heart is, it started going red. He fell back, and went to his side." She adds that she then looked at the crowd and "it all went to their knees, really fast." This is the same account carried separately in this section from The National Desk.

The main interview. The speaker gives her name on camera as Angie Martin and spells it for the interviewer. She identifies herself as a retired police officer with twenty years of service — four and a half years in the jail, four and a half in the courts, ten on the road, and roles including K-9 officer, detective and school resource officer. She says she taught active-shooter response.

Where she was. "I was about ready to go in at the front doors when I heard the gunshot. So I tucked away under, 'cause I'm a retired police officer." She was at the gate, not inside the crowd, and says she did not see the shot itself: "I didn't actually observe the shot."

What she did. Her account is of crowd control rather than of the shooting. She says her first concern was people being trampled as students rushed out, that she grabbed two students, one close to fainting, and moved them through a tunnel to shelter.

On the direction of the report. Asked whether she could tell where the gunshot came from: "Yeah, I just looked up. It sound like it was above, but with gunshots, it could echo." She volunteers the echo caveat herself, which is unusual and worth crediting.

On the man taken into custody. She says she recognised him from a Turning Point USA trip the previous year, names him as George Zinn, and then immediately limits the claim: "I don't know if he's the shooter, but that is the one they arrested." Later she repeats it: "I'm not saying he's a shooter, but I recognized him as being the guy that was arrested." She offers some personal impressions of him from past events. Those impressions are one person's recollection about a living man, they are not evidence of anything, and they are not repeated here. The public record is that authorities did not charge George Zinn in connection with the shooting.

The part that carries the most weight — her read of the wound. Asked for her general thoughts, she reasons from the wound description she had been given:

Based on my experience with [shooters], you know, the way I was described where it hit his heart, and then blasted out this way, it would seem that it would have been shot from below, with it shot out this way. I didn't actually observe the shot. So it would be pretty hard to get a direct shot to the heart, you'd have to be a pretty good [marksman] to do that from that distance.

Two claims sit inside that. The first is geometric: a front-to-back path that exits "this way" implies, to her, an upward angle from below rather than a level shot from a rooftop. The second is about difficulty: she doubts a direct heart hit at that range from an untrained shooter, and says of the man arrested, "I'm not sure if George was that qualified or not." This is a twenty-year officer reasoning aloud on a sidewalk from a second-hand wound description, not a forensic determination, and she flags the limitation herself. It is recorded here because it is one of the earliest on-camera statements from a person with firearms training that the wound pattern did not read as a straight shot.

On the conflicting witnesses she personally gathered. This is the most concrete contribution in the clip:

I have two witnesses ... that were actually on the fourth row back ... [one said] it hit them in the neck. The girl I interviewed said it was a direct hit to the heart, and she saw it. So I called the police, let them know, got their names, so that we have the witnesses, and kept them here until ... he said we could go.

She is describing, on the day, the same chest-versus-neck split that later became a research question in its own right — and she says she preserved both accounts and passed the names to police.

On the scene. She says the heavy multi-agency and SWAT response was normal for a campus incident, that the courtyard would be taped as a large crime scene, and that with four to six thousand people present the processing would take a long time. She closes: "Charlie Kirk's a hero, and I'm praying for his family."

At the time of the interview she says the last she had heard was that Kirk was at the hospital in critical condition.

What The Footage Shows​

A medium close-up of a woman standing on a concrete sidewalk beside a multi-lane road, bright midday sun, traffic and a school bus passing behind her, handheld with slight drift. The interviewer is off camera. That is essentially the whole of the original footage.

Everything else on screen belongs to the poster. In the first eighty seconds the edit cuts through a title card for a podcast roundtable, a campaign endorsement graphic, a state senate campaign card, a screenshot of a social-media post, a still of a man in a crowd ringed and arrowed in green, and a short handheld clip of a man being taken into custody by police. From about 1:10 the overlays stop and the interview runs clean to the end.

Keep that separation in view when weighing this clip. The interview is primary material: a named witness, on the day, on camera, giving her position, her training, her actions and her reasoning. The first eighty seconds are an argument assembled about her a year later by somebody else.

How It Connects​

Where This Video Also Appears​

Other Videos In This Section​

← Back to Eyewitness Accounts of the Wound · All video evidence