If the point is Apperson is just another garden variety fool with a gun I pretty much figured that out by myself

Now, while I don't wish George Zimmerman ill, I will say that the man seems to get into an inordinate number of serious confrontations with people. And the common denominator in each of them has been Zimmerman himself.

I have a young cousin in the Midwest who's the same way. He'll never admit to being the instigator in various dustups with others, but he sure appears to repeatedly attract an awful lot of trouble for someone who's always claiming to just be minding his own business.

I do worry about him because like Zimmerman, he also walks around packing heat, and in at least one instance, he pulled it on someone with whom he was arguing and was briefly arrested for it, although no charges were filed.

Per a comprehensive study conducted in Philadelphia between 2003 and 2006 by Dr. Charles Branas of the University of Pennsylvania, "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45." (Emphasis is mine.)

Further, according to Arthur Kellerman, MD, MPH in the Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care (1998, pp. 263-267), a gun in the household is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure someone in a domestic homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting, than to be used in self-defense.

Does carrying a firearm give people a sense of empowerment that causes them to overreact in tense situations, or embolden them to attempt things that they probably otherwise wouldn't, had they been unarmed? One can only speculate, but there certainly appears to be a strong correlation between the possession of a firearm and an increased probability of being shot.

I support the right of people to bear arms under the Second Amendment -- but if they do, they should realize that statistically, they're actually much less safe than were they unarmed.

My point isn't that George will always be guilty of something, and it's not that in those moments on the ground, I don't believe he didn't think his life was in danger and acted accordingly - I've already recognized both the acquittal and the reasons for it.

What I'm saying is that for George, it doesn't go away just because he was acquitted.  If you were driving down the road and a child darted out in front of you, and you struck and killed the child, would you be able to let that go just because you didn't do it on purpose and it was a total accident and no one blamed you for it?  I know that if that happened to me, I'd probably need some help with it - I'd probably be wishing I had taken a different road, or left my house sooner, or something, anything that would make it not happen.

I think what startles me a little is your inclusion of "Baltimore cops" in what appears to be examples of justifiable homicide.  I can't even imagine what you see in that case that leads you to the conclusion that Freddie's death was justified - but are you now accepting the the cops were responsible for it?

What you don't seem to grasp is that even if one believes that the accused is innocent until proved guilty - and I do - it doesn't mean one has to shut his or her eyes to facts and information.  I mean, what would be the point of arresting or trying anyone if we're not going to consider all the evidence?  

I've already explained what my bias is I'm pro defense.  Innocent until proven guilty

And yet you're not defending the one potentially facing charges in this case.  Just the opposite, in fact.

Probably because there are reports that Zimmerman was waving a gun around, which would seem to denote "involvement," at least in my opinion.

It really ticks me off.

Kenneth Cornell, who works at the nearby Cyrus Diagnostic Imaging, said Apperson ran up to him about 1 p.m. saying he had just shot George Zimmerman.

Cornell said he called 911 and handed the phone over to Apperson.

"He said it was a road rage incident, that they were driving down the street and George pulled a gun on him," Cornell said.

The window appears to be heavily tinted.  So how did the other driver see Zimmerman waving a gun around?

Exactly --

And look at the location of that bullet hole. It's toward the back of that passenger window meaning that it was fired by the coward slightly from behind his  head from a blindspot where Zimmerman couldn't see it coming.

comments seem to break the same way that the comments broke during the trial.

Except in this case the Zimmerman haters are defending the guy who fired the gun, and into a moving vehicle no less.

Some people just fiend for drama and confrontation.  Add gun nuttery to the mix, forget about it.

That being said I do think that it is important to look at the past behavior of both Apperson and Zimmerman to better understand the current case. Of course we should not waste bandwidth discussing Zimmerman's well known past, it just raises everybody's hackles anyway.

Redacted text in the report reads:

"During the investigation, I learned that Apperson has exhibited unusual behaviors in which he had recently been admitted to a mental institution.

It appears that Apperson has a fixation on Zimmerman and has displayed some signs of paranoia, anxiety, and bipolar disorder."

The wife has her lawyer, the momma has her lawyer, and the shooter/husband/son has his lawyers.

What could that all mean?

Did any of them try to mislead police investigators?