The human heart has many function most importantly it motivate us and guides us.  So if we want to know what happened look into heart of this grown man and this child.  George Zimmerman’s (GZ) killing of Trayvon Martin (TM) shows his heart.  Casual reference to f’ing punks?  It shows what's in his heart.  Defense skipped the words f'ing punks.  It was what he was really feeling.  He left it out.  What was in TM's heart?  Fear.  Rachel Jeantel told us about that.  TM is the real victim in this.  Was this child not in fear when running from GZ?  Isn't it a child's worst nightmare, to be followed home in the dark?  That was his last emotion.   Saying: As he speaks so is he.  Before his motive to lie, what was in GZ's heart?  If ever there was a window into a soul it's the language in the phone call.  GZ told dispatch just have them call me.  He was not going back to his car.  If there were any doubt it was removed by GZ.  And, after all the lies he told, what does that tell you?   Maybe not about big things, but what matters, and over and over again.  What does that tell you?  Why lie if he's doing no wrong.  Bottom line is if only he had done what he was supposed to, see and call, we not be here, but in his heart he thought,  "Tonight they don't get away."  That's why he got out of his car.  He could have driven to the back gate b t he didn't.  TM may have no blood but GZ will have TM's blood on his hands forever.  Saying:  "To the living we owe respect but to the dead we owe the truth."  TM is entitled to the truth and GZ lied.  That is why we're here.   By end the end of that night a bullet was in TM's heart.   What happened after GZ hung up after call to dispatch and when Rachel Jeantel heard a thump?  4 minutes, what was GZ doing for 4 minutes?  It takes 4 seconds to get to the T location, not 2 minutes.  He was not going to his car.  4 minutes was not enough time for TM to run home.  It was the time he had to live.  You don't need clips or charts or ten foot timelines.  Use your heart and common sense.  For the defense, the event starts at the T.  That's not fair.  It’s like reading the last chapter only.  How did we get here?  Who are these people?  In the 7-11?  The child had every right to be there, to do what he was doing.  He had a right be afraid of a strange man following him in a car and on foot.  Didn't TM have the right to defend himself from a strange man?    No fireworks but come with me and bring your God given common sense. GZ had hate in his heart.  If TM had been had been mounted as he claimed he could not have gotten his gun.  Could not have gotten gun.  Impossible.  Only way is if TM got off or backed up so far.  GZ shot because he wanted to.  Bottom line.   If TM had run, why look for address?  Self-serving.  False.

The yelling, listen to it again.  Hear that it stops at the shot.  GZ says he thought he missed and spread TM's arms, so why stop yelling for help.  If he had been yelling so long he'd be hoarse.  This is not about self defense.  He was the Neighborhood Watch coordinator.  He knows the streets.  If he had really seen TM’s hand in his waistband he never would have gotten out of the car.  If he's so soft, he couldn't get wrist control or get TM's hand off his gun.   If Tm had hit GZ so many times, TM's watch would have come off.  If TM were hunting would he keep his phone in his ears, if he's so ready to attack?  Most important, if had not committed a crime, why did he lie so many times?  Dispatch said, "Get address." He told dispatch to tell cops to meet him at his car.  Why lie?   Because he wasn't going back to his car.  He lied about the confrontation.  GZ said TM covered his mouth and nose.  But then he said TM was squeezing his nose, but there's no blood under his fingernails.  Lie.    Concrete is so hard that if he had been bashed like he said, he would be more hurt.  In photo, that's no serious injury.  Lumps are not serious.  TM had right to defend himself. Next day GZ went to the doctor to get a note for work.  Not that bad at all.  GZ says TM saw his gun.  He couldn't have seen it.  If TM had seen it would there be a perfect shot in the chest if TM knew he was fighting for his life?   Why say he spread TM's arms out?  To make TM a threat.  But TM's hands were clutching his wound.   GZ had to make him sound menacing to justify his use of force.  It's impossible the way he told cops TM went away and then circled the car, impossible.   This case is about staying in your car.  GZ cloaks himself in the Neighborhood Watch.  But he violates the core principles. He changed his story. Here he said he saw TM.   Why tell TM came through cut?  To make TM a menace.  He says TM grabbed gun.  Why lie?  Never circled car. GZ got his phone out or was reaching for his phone.  Not supposed to be vigilante.  Just call the cops.   He got a book as coordinator of the Neighborhood Watch about what to do.    They say he's a responsible gun owner.  After he shot he did not yell for an ambulance, didn't roll TM over to check him or to let him breathe.  He just waited and stood there.  Who is responsible for TM being on the ground?  Not himself.  I wish he were here. I would love to put my hand on his shoulder.  He is not cardboard.    (He cracks up)   This is not TV.  Not everyone is well-dressed.  On Law and Order there's always a fingerprint.  Here, it all comes in.  The good and the bad too.    Remember, if you don't like a witness or not this and not that, ask yourself, who produced this trial?  Who chose the details?  It was GZ.  He chose everything, that’s why we're here.  I'm not asking you to fill in gaps.  Start at the beginning and use your common sense.  The verdict will not bring back TM.  We can't change the past but we can define it.    So a frustrated grown man with hate in his heart, gets out of his car and follows a child in the dark and shoots him in the heart.  Is that nothing?  Not defense's call or mine.  It's yours.  TM entitled to it and GZ deserves it.

Reasonable belief of great bodily harm?  Can they show how did that man need to kill a teen?  Who lost this fight?  TM.  Evidence and facts, surrounding circumstances.  He knew cops were coming and people were coming out and when he shot TM was not on top.  That's how he could get his gun.  Did he need to shoot? No.  The defense says that TM could have gone home.  It seems so.  Why not go home?  He didn't want this man to follow him home where his little brother was home alone.   Expert said no options for GZ but the only evidence he had at time of shot was from GZ's self-serving statements.   Somehow he got the gun expert said.  TM was on top with no gun.   GZ made so many statements to justify his shooting TM.  He kept increasing his story, to Hannity he said it's all God's plan.   The Defense mocked me, but GZ pushed his gun into TM's chest, didn't he?

Reasonable doubt.  You'll be told what it's not.  Attach a doubt if it's reasonable, and go to each element of the crime.  If doubt does not attach to an element of the crime, don't apply it.   Listen to law.  The court will tell you about the law.

This case is not about race.  It's about right and wrong because if rolls were reversed and GZ was walking home in a hoodie for protection from rain, and a teen in a car calls cops with hate in his mouth and TM had shot GZ, what would your verdict be?  That's how you know it's not about race.  We owe truth to TM. 16 y 21 days old forever, he was a brother, a son, a friend and he last thing he did was try to get home. Hate and lies.  Those words can't be taken back.  Law applies to us all and this is truth.

That's it.  It goes to the jury