A few weeks ago, I commented on the way the mainstream media covered the case of Matthew Apperson, the man who fired his gun at George Zimmerman’s vehicle in May of this year. Since then, Apperson was convicted, and he has now been sentenced.

But just as in the initial reporting of the incident, the news coverage has been heavily focused on Zimmerman, rather than Apperson, the accused shooter. The Orlando headline (10/17/16) reported as follows:

Matthew Apperson, the man who shot at George Zimmerman, gets 20 years in prison

Okay, at least this time the folks at the Orlando Sentinel actually named Apperson, who was, after all, the one on trial. In much of their previous coverage, he was simply referred to as “Zimmerman shooter”—the obvious reason being to capitalize on Zimmerman’s notoriety in any way possible.

That being said, of particular interest to me was the part of the article that said: “a Seminole County jury found Matthew Apperson, 37, guilty last month of attempted second-degree murder, armed aggravated assault, and shooting into a vehicle.”

Now, I expected Apperson to get convicted of something—after all, he did fire into another vehicle without any proof of provocation. And when it came to his claim that he was defending himself, virtually all of the evidence contradicted his story. But I was a little surprised that he went 0 for 3—the jury convicted him on all three counts.

This doesn’t happen that often. When there is conflicting testimony, jurors will often “split the difference” and convict on only one charge, depending on the circumstances and how sympathetic (or unsympathetic) the victim happens to be. So naturally, I wondered if, with all the press coverage prior to the trial that focused on Zimmerman, it would bias the jury against him, causing them to cut Apperson some slack.

For example, just about every article rehashed Zimmerman’s shooting of teenager, Trayvon Martin, in 2012. Even the most recent article on Apperson’s sentencing detailed Zimmerman’s various troubles, including disputes with his ex-wife and various issues with his girlfriend, including a claim that Zimmerman threatened her with his gun.

But as I mentioned in my previous commentary, Apperson is in many ways even less sympathetic than Zimmerman, coming across in court as combative and arrogant. There was even a report that immediately following the shooting, he had “joyfully bragged” about shooting Zimmerman.

In the end, the judge, Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson, handed down the state-mandated minimum: 20 years. No surprise, Apperson’s mother disagreed with the sentence. Moments before Apperson was sentenced, his wife, Lisa, had accused the judge of making “unfair rulings and allowing an innocent man to go to jail.” His attorney, Michael LaFay, asked Nelson to free Apperson, a paralegal, while he files an appeal. The judge said no. Apperson fired a gun at someone in a moving vehicle on a busy street, creating a threat to public safety, she said. The appeal should be interesting, to say the least.

Meanwhile, we always like to learn whatever we can from such high-profile cases. And the continuing saga of George Zimmerman is a textbook example of how messy self-defense can be, how the media will treat us if we find ourselves in similar situations, and how vitally important it is for all of us to be aware, and make good decisions…every single day.

Be smart. Be safe.