Zimmerman Shooter Claims Self-Defense
Tells press “This is your opportunity to get out of my face right now.”
So this should be interesting:
Matthew Apperson, the man who yesterday fired a bullet at George Zimmerman’s head and missed, is now claiming through his lawyer, Mark NeJame, that he did so in self-defense in response to Zimmerman brandishing a gun at him.
Florida news station WFTV is also reporting that Apperson has a history at least six arrests in Seminole County alone, including twice for DUI in 2000 (once found guilty of DUI, once found guilty of reduced charge of reckless driving-alcohol related), twice for drug possession in 1995 and 1998 (cannabis < 20 grams), once for trespassing, as well as being adjudicated guilty for other charges, such as driving with a revoked license.
As might be expected with such a plethora of charges, Apperson is also a multiple probation violator.
It will be interesting to see how Apperson will argue self-defense in court without having to testify personally, which would seem necessary absent any witnesses to support his claim that he fired at Zimmerman only when Zimmerman brandished a gun at him.
Also interesting will be Apperson’s explanation of how he was able to observe Zimmerman’s alleged brandishing through the heavily tinted window of Zimmerman’s SUV.
Whatever explanation Apperson may seek to personally communicate, his criminal history will certainly be used to attack his credibility.
Apperson’s interaction yesterday with WFTV news reporter Mario Boone also doesn’t exactly suggest the coolest of demeanors. Boone reports that when asked for comment outside of the Lake Mary Police Department, Apperson responded aggressively, blowing cigarette (?) smoke at the reporter and forcefully stating: “This is your opportunity to get out of my face right now.”
On the plus side, Apperson has both his mother and wife speaking favorably of him in public.
As of this reporting, neither Zimmerman nor Apperson has been arrested or charged.
Here’s the statement made to the press by Apperson’s lawyer, Mark NeJame. It basically repeats the claim of self-defense, then defers all substantive questions to the “investigation,” stating to the gathered press: “The manner of mode in which [Apperson] acted in self-defense, I’m not going to get into at this time.” (Source: WFTV.)
And here’s the press statement from the St. Mary Police Department, again rather light on substantive detail, from WFTV:
So far, at least, it’s only been Zimmerman who provided any substantive details of what occurred through his attorney Don West (who was also co-counsel in Zimmerman’s murder trial following Zimmerman’s self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin). Don is quoted by WESH news as saying:
“Law enforcement will do their job. They’ll decide what charges to file. I’m confident George will not be charged. It doesn’t surprise me this fellow would say (that) George waived a gun or did something. He’s in a lot of trouble. That’s a very serious crime. You know, the circumstances would suggest that if he didn’t want to kill him, he certainly didn’t care if he did.”
West said Zimmerman had recently moved out of Florida was in town for Mother’s Day. He was on his way to a doctor’s appointment before the alleged shooting.
“George was driving down the road on Lake Mary Boulevard. This guy was sort of following him and flashing lights and such. (Zimmerman) decided to get away from him, decided to make a U-turn. And this guy made a U-turn right behind him and then pulled up alongside him and shot at him.”
Here’s some video of West addressing these points, again from WESH news:
Guess we’ll have to wait to see how things unfold.
–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of it’s online, on-demand state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training. These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule. Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training, and get access to the ~30 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Zimmerman shoots Martin. Liberals: “ZIMMERMAN’S WHITE! RACISM!”
Zimmerman shot by white man: “ZIMMERMAN’S HISPANIC! RACISM!”
No.
What are the odds that the state will decline to prosecute Apperson, saying that Zimmerman is “well known” to be a dangerous person so the self-defense claim is “obviously” correct? Or that if they do prosecute they’ll allow that presumption through to the jury without objection, and Zimmerman himself will have no standing to challenge it?
I don’t know the odds, but I do know that most prosecutors take a potential aggravated assault charge very seriously. Florida law provides that a person who acts in lawful self-defense is immune from arrest. So police will carefully investigate before making an arrest and prosecutors will carefully weigh any charging decision.
Angela Corey is not involved here.
Yep 10-20-LIFE law would put him away for I believe 20 years.
If I remember right (not looking it up but I was once held at gunpoint in Florida), it’s 10 years minimum for illegally brandishing even the 1st offense, 20 years minimum for illegally firing even the 1st offense, Life for anything else.
“10-20-Life”:
FS §775.087 Possession or use of weapon; aggravated battery; felony reclassification; minimum sentence.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-775-087-possession-or-use-of-weapon-aggravated-battery-felony-reclassification-minimum-sentence/
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Brandishing (called Improper Exhibition of a Firearm and/or Improper Display of a Weapon, statute 790.10), is a possible 12 month sentence/$1000 fine. It’s explained pretty well here.
The crime of Improper Exhibition of a Firearm or Weapon in Florida contains the following three elements:
— A person had or carried a dangerous weapon or firearm (as listed above);
— The person exhibited the dangerous weapon or firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner (as listed above); AND
— The person did so in the presence of one or more persons.
It’s only when the weapon is used in the commission of certain felonies (see Mr. Branca’s link) that 10-20-life kicks in. So, just brandishing a gun isn’t automatically going to get anyone the big sentences, but do it during the commission of a robbery, carjacking, assault, or similar and you’re in deep doo-doo.
Corey herself may not be involved, but whoever is involved is her colleague, and I fear may be cut from the same cloth, or at least share the same view of Zimmerman.
Keep in mind that it was her colleague over there, Seminole County State Attorney Norm Wolfinger, who didn’t press charges against Zimmerman immediately, in the Trayvon Martin shooting case.
The shooting occurred on February 26, and when the Seminole County State Attorney still hadn’t pressed charges by nearly a month later, is when Governor Scott started feeling the heat. So Wolfinger conveniently “stepped down” (cough), and that’s when Scott appointed Corey as Special Prosecutor in the case, and the legal side of the “Get George” circus began in earnest.
And also keep in mind that the Lake Mary police in the Martin case also didn’t immediately charge Zimmerman either. That’s what all the national uproar was about, that people thought the Lake Mary police and the Seminole County State Attorney were going too easy on Zimmerman.
It may well be the case that everyone there is out to get him now, but that certainly wasn’t the case back in 2012.
Florida has a vigorous speedy trial law — and it is enforced. A defendant raising self-defense is entitled to a stand your ground hearing where the prosecutor must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was not self-defense.
That means that police and prosecutors will often carefully investigate before making an arrest. The clock starts ticking once the arrest is made.
I am sure that Andrew would never do this — but some Florida defense attorneys have been known to force the issue when a prosecutor charges a client before gathering enough evidence to meet the evidentiary burden of a stand your ground hearing or trial.
It is ironic. When it comes to civil liberties, Florida is actually more liberal than states such as Massachusetts or New York.
I hadn’t even thought of that aspect of it. Good point!
Yep, he agreed with the Police Chief that no charges were warranted, you know the Chief they had to fire before they could get Zimmerman charged.
I’ve always found it ironic that attempted murder is a charge in which the perpetrator is rewarded for failure.
The state controlled media would like nothing better to see George Zimmerman dead. They would make instantly make the killer their hero. Even if he got the death penalty, they would rally behind him. They would also say that Trayvon finally got the revenge, the media and the liberal haters could not provide.
First of all, you’re the best, Andrew! You do great work on this site. A question I have is how did Apperson know it was Zimmerman? Because of the tinting and the placement of the bullet hole, it’s obvious the window was up. My only thought was that this guy made it a point to know what Zimmerman’s truck looked like. It does appear that this is the same vehicle George used when the altercation with Martin occurred. That means it was the same vehicle George was in when he first ran into Apperson back in September.
This guy is a weird stalker. Hard to believe the police did not arrest him.
Maybe Apperson is wanting to be thew man who shot George Zimmerman. Que music, the man who shot Liberty Valance.
As much as the media love to hound Zimmerman, and inflate every interaction he has with police, it’s kind of odd that I haven’t seen or read anything about him actually having had a gun with him this time. You know that given his history, if he had a gun with him during this that would have been front page news. Again.
That was the lead story with Shep Smith yesterday. We all know how much Shep Smith hates George Zimmerman. Smith was one of the leaders of the lynch mob before and during the Trayvon trial.
Reading WaPo, Reuters, CNN and NYPost, they all mention the shooters claim that Zimmerman had a gun, and everyone seems to assume he had one, but I’ve seen nothing that goes beyond claims and assumptions. I guess I’ll wait on the police report.
Z probably had a gun in the car, as he probably always has one nearby, but it seems doubtful that he brandished it during this incident.
Wouldn’t you have a gun if you were in GZ’s position? He has been repeatedly threatened with death or great bodily injury, esp. after being acquitted in the death of TM. And he should still have his concealed carry permit.
Nope, I would have 3 to 4. Main automatic on hip, back up sub-compact automatic on either ankle or in small of back, and probably a 2 shot pocket pistol. Plus the Automatic in the glove box or console.
Over a million people in Florida have CCLs. As long as you’re not demonstrated to have been using your gun to commit a crime, it shouldn’t matter whether you happen to have one in your car when some other incident occurs, any more than if you had a flashlight in the glovebox or a set of golf clubs in the trunk.
Our trembling media class really need to get over this unhealthy “eek! a gun!” obsession of theirs.
That is part “if it bleeds it ledes”, and part stirring up trouble to write about. (Gun control increases crime, so it increases stuff to write about.)
“Brandishing” suggests a menacing, unlawful show of a gun to induce fear in an innocent person. If GZ was being aggressively followed and was in fear for his safety when confronted by Apperson, “showing” a firearm may have been completely appropriate as an attempt to avoid trouble without actually using violence. (A possibly example of “I only had to show my gun” type of self-defense the anti-gun crowd claims doesn’t really happen in actual situations.)
The police confirmed he had a gun.
Is this a case of some crazy person stalking Zimmerman or is it another case of Zimmerman not being a good judge of “friends?”
I have reality show idea.
Is Tonya Harding single?
perhaps Lorena Bobbitt should be introduced to Matthew Apperson?
So that the rest of his “male anatomy” can match his testicles?
Have you seen anything indicating prior contact between them?
No friends involved. The crazy man Apperson has been stalking Zimmerman since at least last September.
Fox and friends this morning had Peter Johnson and Kilmeade talking about, maybe GZ should have his gun taken away, because he has been involved in so many incidents. “Absolutely he could claim self defense” followed by a bunch of “allegedly”s, but an emphasis on GZ’s mental state.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4231464284001/george-zimmerman-involved-in-another-florida-shooting/?#sp=show-clips
But he was just in town for Mother’s Day, and he has become hated by many on the left. If it can be shown that GZ made the u-turn and this guy followed, it would look like attempted murder.
GZ probably does have some mental duress, from having to shoot Trayvon even in self defense, plus then the leftist world hating on him and having Holder and Black Panthers threatening him. Maybe he should sell the rights to a new book, move to Idaho, and get a good dog.
That’s a pathetic clip from Fox News.
I Don’t think that Z has a legal problem here. But the other guy? If he knew that the driver he was tailing was Z, he could reasonably expect that he would be legally armed. I would be in Z’ s place. We don’t know whether Z showed his (probable) gun. But is that sufficient for SD? Was his fear imminent and reasonable? If Z wasn’t pointing the gun at him, then maybe not. But, as AB points out, the only way to get this SD claim into evidence, and thereby assert it, is probably to testify in open court, which opens him to cross-examination. Not the best record, and he did apparently follow Z, trying to instigate this confrontation (which would argue against subjective fear). Interesting though, if he does get acquitted in court, it may actually be because of the real Stand Your Ground law.
The only way I see a reasonable claim of self defense is if GZ did actually brandish a gun illegally. If that is the case, stand your ground need not apply as standard self defense would cover.
SYG is NOT some alternative or parallel means of arguing/claiming self-defense.
All SYG does is remove (for most purposes) the element of avoidance/retreat from a claim of self-defense.
All the other elements of a self-defense–EVERY ONE–MUST still be present. If the State can disprove any of the remaining elements, even a SINGLE ONE of them, the claim of self-defense fails.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Andrew, this got me thinking. In a non SYG state where the castle doctrine doesn’t give you immunity in your vehicle, would it be reasonable for a person in Apperson’s position to claim he couldn’t avoid the situation? In other words, he’s in a car – is he expected to floor it if he sees a weapon?
In my comment above, assuming the other four principles have been satisfied.
Do you remember the Maryland “road rage” case, with the out-of-state off-duty cop? Maryland is definitely a “duty to retreat” state, yet instead of staying in his minivan and driving off, the off-duty cop got out and ended up shooting the other driver. And he was found not guilty. (Though whether that would have still been the case had he been a “commoner” and not an off-duty New Jersey cop, I don’t know.)
https://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02/off-duty-cop-road-rage-murder-trial-next-big-self-defense-case/
Being LEO saved Joseph Walker’s ass in that trial. Had it been me, I’d be serving a long sentence right now.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
I would expect the normal vagaries of traffic to seperate the vehicles, without anyone trying to evade, and from what I read, GZ did try to evade, which makes the shooter the aggressor.
Well, there’s a whole bunch I don’t understand, like, wasn’t the shooter /driving/ a lethal weapon?
I don’t even need to go look to know… all the crazies who were crying about GZ “following” TV and therefore “asking for it” are in a tizzy right now claiming that what this guy did is exactly the same thing as what GZ did and therefore GZ deserved to be shot by this guy. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Apperson’s social media history is dug up and we find he is one of those crazies.
You can tell them that the main difference is GZ did not “double back” on this guy and ambush him then proceed to put his life in a situation of reasonable threat.
That’s the difference…
If during the Martin confrontation, Zimmerman had gotten out of his car, stalked Martin, found him, and took a shot at him without apparent provocation then this would be the same incident in reverse with Apperson playing the role of Martin.
Whether there is any “duty to retreat” if possible or not, even if a guy has a window down and points a gun, isn’t it most practical to stop one’s own car and/or pull over? If the guy is pointing the gun and going to shoot, I don’t have time to pull mine even if it’s in my lap. The brake pedal is faster and safer.
And this guy shot through heavily tinted glass, though perhaps he could claim the window was down to the point of the bullet hole. But forensics should be able to show if the window was mostly up, in which case it seems like attempted murder. (unless it hit the other window, if GZ’s other window was down, I guess the bullet could have gone out the other side, or they could claim both windows were partly down)
Even if Z flashed or pointed the gun earlier, by the time he rolled up the window, the imminent threat would have been gone (ballistics will tell if the window was all the way up when the shot was fired, as seems likely). And there’s no duty to retreat while driving on a road in any state. How would that work, anyway?
Sorry about the accidental down vote.
The duty to retreat here is interesting. The apparent problem is that this guy was tailing GZ and trying to get him involved or engaged. Think about it – you tail and harass someone you know is often armed, then immediately shoot him when you see what you claim to be a gun. Sounds pretty hinky to me. If there should be a duty to retreat in some situations, this would probably be one (which is why it is too bad that you are probably right).
There should be a law against setting up an assassination attempt like this may have been. And that is why I suggested that this guy likely did not have an imminent subjective fear of loss of life or great bodily injury. Objective fear? Would the normal reasonable person fear for his life, etc? Maybe. But did he actually fear for his life? He was following and harassing someone he had every reason to believe was armed, and he was attempting to get into a confrontation. Sounds more like he was more waiting to see a gun, or some other provocation, before shooting GZ, than that he reacted in actual fear for his life.
I’m pretty sure there are laws in most states against setting up an assassination attempt. I’ll have to search for the FL statute and get back to you.
In other words, you can’t justifiably shoot someone because a situation you caused put your life in danger, and in which a reasonable person would have had an expectation that the situation could do so; you can’t induce another person to react in a way such that you can then injure or kill him.
This is actually a situation that concealed carriers are told to avoid. We’re taught not to start fights, because if we end up using our firearms to end them, we will be considered the aggressors even if our lives were actually in danger. On the street, this is known as “Don’t start no shit and there won’t be no shit.” In Apperson’s case, he started it – he therefore had no right to end it with lethal force.
“I’d say the biggest misconception is that if you’re carrying a gun you get to take shit from fewer people. The reality is exactly opposite. When you’re carrying a gun you have to take shit from everybody.”
— Some Lawyer Dude On The Internet 😉
Char Char,,don’t you think there would be more shattering on the passenger side glass if it were partially open? I tend to think the clean bullet hole completely supports the notion the window was shut.
Yes, I agree.
I agree. It’s pretty obvious that if ballistics show Zimmerman’ window was rolled up he couldn’t be threatening anyone with a gun. I can’t figure out what is taking the police so long to make an arrest. The only reason I can come up with is they want to arrest Zimmerman, but he evidence is in his favor.
…or they could be doing a good, thorough investigation before exposing anybody to the vicissitudes of an arrest on felony charges (which seem in prospect).
Which we all support.
If Matthew Apperson were to be seen by Zimmerman in the future, would he have a good SYG defense if he were to drop in on the spot?
I doing the vicarious face-palm for Andrew.
Oy…
You’d be doing yourself a real service getting a copy of the Kindle version or “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” it’s only $9.99, Kindle-readers for various platforms are free so don’t even need a dedicated Kindle device. http://is.gd/J0QM1e
If you insist on a paper book, we’ve got those, too. http://www.lawofselfdefense.com/shop I’ll even autograph the paper one, if you want.
The answer to your question, however, is “no.”
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Ok, it’s Andrew’s book, but I think it essential if you want to understand this area of the law.
Is that another bullet hole in the area where the passenger door opens?
Just light reflecting where the sheet metal rolls over at the edge.
Did none of Apperson’s prior “involvements” with the law result in a dispositiopn that would have made this effort on his part a slam dunk for “prohibited person in possession of a firearm?”
This made me laugh, if only for the number of times I’ve seen people trot out George Zimmerman’s arrest record and string of mug shots and ask the same question:
“Did none of
Apperson’sZimmerman’s prior ‘involvements’ with the law result in a disposition that would have made this effort on his part a slam dunk for ‘prohibited person in possession of a firearm?'”Zimmerman’s never been convicted of any criminal offense.
Apperson has been convicted of several, including a DUI and a DUI pleaded down to reckless driving involving alcohol, as well as numerous probation violations, etc. Seems a guy has considerable trouble following society’s rules.
Not sure these two are comparable in terms of their “past experience” with the criminal justice system.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
But in the case of both Zimmerman and Apperson, people are not talking about actual convictions, but are trotting out arrest records and mug shots, because those are much more dramatic. And they’re pointing to the arrest records and the mug shots as reasons as to why this guy they don’t like (Apperson in this case, Zimmerman for the Libs) shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.
Arrest records and strings of mug shots are not sufficient to count someone out as some kind of deranged super-criminal… as anyone watching the Libs play that game in regard to Zimmerman should know.
If we’re going to bound the conversation on what “people” do, then what’s the point? “People” do all kinds of crap. Some of them burn down their own neighborhoods. Some attack neighborhood watch volunteers. Some become fixated on public figures. Some care for nothing but advancing their Progressive race-grievance political paradigm.
I prefer to focus on the subject at hand, which is these two gentlemen.
There’s a difference between arrests and convictions.
While both of these men have been arrested, only ONE Of these men has been criminally convicted.
And it ISN’T George Zimmerman.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
No, we just have to remember that whatever ad-hoc rules we’re going to come up with as an excuse to take away the Constitutional rights of people we don’t like; those laws will be equally applied to the people we do like.
(apologies – that response belonged in the sub-thread below…)
And in the case of Apperson, is anyone honestly suggesting that one 15-year-old DUI offense, one 15-year-old reckless driving offense, and one driving with a revoked license offense (no doubt linked to the DUI), and whatever probation breaches he had (also probably linked to the DUI), should be grounds for banning someone from owning firearms for life?
I’m cool with taking guns off people convicted of violent crimes, domestic violence, felonies, and all that; and from those legally declared mentally incompetent or defective.
But if we’re going to go round up the guns of anyone with 15-year-old driving offenses on their record, we’re going to be rounding up a lot of guns…
If a person can’t be trusted to safely and responsibly operate a motor vehicle in public, why in the world would we think they can be trusted to safely and responsibly carry a firearm in public?
Both cars and firearms are inherently dangerous instruments. Wielding either in public while intoxicated . . . I just don’t see it as much of a public policy stretch to suggest that’s a bad idea, for both cars and guns.
And then when caught, the abject refusal to abide by the (let’s face it) very modest punishment imposed–stay sober, basically, was all that was asked of Apperson.
REPEATED convictions for such offenses, and breaches of agreed upon punishments . . . well, that’s not a momentary lapse of judgment, is it? 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Not to dip my oar tooooo deep in this confab, but…
gun possession is a Constitutional right, while driving isn’t.
So, arguendo, these situations are distinguishable on that very global basis.
Okay, so anyone who convicted of a DUI, we take their guns off them. For how long? A year? 5 years? 10 years? Life?
In Florida, having two or more DUI convictions within the previous three years can be grounds to deny someone a CCL, and that makes sense, but to make it the law that one DUI and your Second Amendment rights are cancelled forever, well I don’t know how that one would fly.
And anyway, *I* sure don’t want to be the one to have to go down to Texas and take George Bush’s guns off him for that DUI he scored when he was young and foolish. You up for that one, Rags?
So now we’re just talking about where to draw the lines. 🙂
One DUI? Two? Three? Within 10 years? 5 years? 2 years?
The fundamental principle remains the same–repeated drunk driving violations is not an indicator of someone that anyone wants stumbling around in public with a loaded gun.
Or should we add DUI conviction as one of the QUALIFICATIONS for getting a CCW? 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Apperson is nuts. It’s very possible his whole family is nuts.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/who-is-matthew-apperson/32955520
“If I had a son, he would be called Matthew”. Metaphorically speaking of course.
Just hours after this happened yesterday, Ragspierre warned,
And… boom! 🙂
My prediction: Apperson will be charged with attempted murder or some lesser derivation. If it goes to trial, he will be convicted. I don’t see how a self-defense claim can stand, especially if he doesn’t testify. It will be interesting if Zimmerman is called as a witness.
I agree, but I don’t see how he could avoid an attempted murder 1 charge, unless there’s some evidence I don’t know of (there always is, of course).
Who is the prosecutor in Lake Mary?
My understanding is that the police in Lake Mary don’t like George. Can the prosecutor act if they don’t give him anything?
This. And if the local police don’t like him, odds are the local prosecutor doesn’t either, and will either punt the case or intentionally flub it.
The prosecutor is still the same one that declined to charge Zimmerman in the TM case.
No. The police “not liking” George is not because they think he is a criminal.( Sorry tried to avoid the double negative, couldn’t find a way. ) They don’t like him because they think he is a trouble magnet. He’s like qn Angel, where he goes trouble follows.
The prosecutor doesn’t have to deal with the trouble that George generates in an intensive way.
I totally support Matthew Apperson. From I’ve read Mr Apperson has a legitimate self defense claim.George Zimmerman is a menace to society. This was the best news I’ve heard in quite a while. Once again the hypocrisy is in full effect. The backgrounds of Trayvon Martin,Freddy Gray, Investigator Mackel are and were relevant to the cases at hand. The backgrounds of Joseph Harvey,George Zimmerman,Lieutenant Rice Theodore Wafer on the other hand weren’t or aren’t relevant to the cases at hand. #IStandWithMatthew.
Thanks for the chuckle of the day!
Who I support or don’t support is always based on the evidence we have. I supported Zimmerman because there is ample evidence that he was attacked and had no choice. Wafer had very weak evidence and his claim of self-defense was weak. I did not support him. So, tell me, what evidence is there that Apperson acted in self-defense?
“I totally support Matthew Apperson.”
Yes. Nutbags hang together. I hope you’ll be sending him your monthly allowance for his defense fund.
“Once again the hypocrisy is in full effect.”
Once again, as a Collectivist troll, you just lie.
As pertains to the LEGAL issues, Trayvon Martin’s background had very little play at trial. Conversely, Zimmerman’s DID, and was a strong factor in his acquittal.
Again, as pertains to LEGAL issues, dead Fred’s criminal history was a factor in his arrest, Mackel’s history is relevant to his credibility and objectivity, etc., and there is no rational link to Lt. Rice’s issues years ago and anything being alleged vis dead Fred.
But here’s your chance to go where no rational being has gone before, and tie Rice’s issues to the Gray arrest and transport.
Gray: Evolution In Action
How cute! You made a hashtag…be sure to show it to mom. She will be so proud of your activism.
Shouldn’t that be #IFallWithMatthew 🙂
#SquirrelsunitedagainstMatthew
Humm, why am I not surprised that you support, what is increasingly looking like attempted murder, if not a full blown assassination attempt on an innocent man.
By the way, how is the temp. in Mom’s basement today, comfortable?
Conspiracy alert: Andrew planned this to sell more books!
Buy the LOSD!
By the way, not to make light of this newest MSM feeding frenzy but the “face off” expression picture at the top of this article is pure gold.
“Florida Man” – That is all.
– Josh in Champaign
Of course this is from media so its reliability could be questionable. I read where Apperson commented to someone, “that he just shot George Zimmerman”, comment was just before calling 911. Sounds to me this was not a typical road rage incident. Sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing go after Z.
Time will tell.
Interesting how the media headlines read, Zimmerman involved in shooting, then lists his recent run ins but nothing about the shooter.
Sorry if already mentioned, apparently the shooter is a crazed stalker – story from 2014 about very similar incident here: http://www.re-newsit.com/2014/09/george-zimmerman-side-of.html
This Apperson fellow is obviously mentally ill–just look at the video. Surprised he has a wife to be honest.
I’m not a shrink, but I’d guess that Apperson is autistic. The bit with the family holding hands and charging across the yard was really strange.