0 police where he was going. i didn't mean that i was pursuing him. >> i'm not following my daughter when she's on the in the street and i'm scared of what's going on happen. i'm just following her in the same direction. >> he had, and he couldn't hit my head on the concrete anymore, he started to try to suffocate me. i continued to push his hands off my mouth and nose, particularly because it was excruciating, having a broken nose and him putting his weight on me. that's the point in time when he started to telling me to shut up, shut up, shut up. >> why did he tell you to shut up? >> i don't know. >> where's all that blood on trayvon martin's hands? armpits. how does he get the gun out? the truth does not lie. earlier he showed you, he showed the police where that gun was. how does he manage to get a perfect shot to the heart of a 17-year-old man, a teenager. he doesn't say he will grab the holster. he grabbed the gun between the rear side and the hammers. these are two individuals, mr. osterman, a trained federal agent, and he's trained to defend in terms of firearms, so they know what they're talking about. in fact he sited the perfect gun to get. he describes in detail what part of the gun the victim touched. no dna, only the defendant's dna. i guess that got washed away too? or is it another lie that he tells? pivot at 90 degrees, et cetera. he might get up again. he then holsters the gun. all right. let's talk about ill will, in terms of one of the elements in terms of murder. i'm going through this real quickly. ten years, dreams of hunting fugitives. those are some of the documents that were submitted. learns all about self-defense. that's exactly what you have to say. talking about here in terms of the fact that the stucco man has actually been involved in catching somebody, so he wants to get credit for it, too. he doesn't want to be left out. after all, he's the neighborhood coordinator. of course, he wants to make trayvon martin a criminal. and he couldn't find the address. recall how he's trying to mislead the police. see? there's no address on the back of these. why? if he's not doing anything wrong in following an individual, why does he have to lie about it? common sense. how many arms did trayvon martin need for punching, moving to the sidewalk, grabbing the head, smothering a mouth and nose, grabbing for the gun, all at the same time? how many arms did he need? how much supposed and i have can be packed into 70 seconds? that's what we're talking about. assuming it began immediately after the rachel/trayvon phone call, he moves, what, 40 feet from where he claims it started in man, somebody there must be a flash. when he claims that trayvon martin, it took him 25 slams, how is he alive? how is the defendant alive? or is he exaggerating that to justify in miss mind what he had to do? the wrist lock he describes, how did he learn that technique? perhaps it's at the mixed martial arts where he went two, three days a week, but really didn't get much training. think about the time frame here. is the evidence agreed in terms of the physical evidence and the testimony. i would submit it does, in terms of the guilt of this defendant. do you recall mr. o'brien, the hoa president, what he talked about in terms of the procedures they're supposed to follow? you recall about you don't follow people, you call the police? without regard for human life. that includes a series of related actions pursuant to a single design or purpose. i am not going to let this effing punks or as get away. he's a criminal i am following this guy. i'm armed, i'm going to make sure he doesn't get away before the police get here. defense is going to claim, oh, he was a little -- why is he having to lie about the whole thing? as you see he wasn't doing anything wrong in following this victim. why does she have to lie about it. why won't he admit he went to follow him? why did he come up with, i didn't know the street, i don't know the address? doesn't that kind of show his mental state? of such a nature, that the act itselves -- and in order to conviction, it's not necessary to prove the defendant had an intent. we're not saying he intended to go and kill him. he does for a moment there. they speak volumes in temperatures of his choices. isn't that the truth? isn't that the truth? victim really didn't get to choose anything, did he? or anyone? the state -- the instruction that the court will read to you will tell you in part that the state has charged this defendant with second-degree murder. the verdict should be for the highest offense that's been proven. there's a lesser included, and hurricane katrina wasn't just a thundershower. in other words, your duty is if you find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the highest crime. then if not, you go to a lesser crime. manslaughter, he committed an intentional act, excusable or justifiable. you'll get those instructions about no action -- the court will read the whole instruction to you. in terms of how you decide -- we talked briefly about that. to the evidence entried, the case must be decided only on the evidence, what the lawyers say is not evidence, and you are not even to consider it as such. you may not decide if it gives you bias or sympathy or anger or feel sorry for anyone. why do we have such rules? what if? that's not a lack of evidence. could always be more. that's not reasonable you will not hear, because a lawyer or hollywood screenwriter can imagine something more that could be done. you must find the evidence lacking. you notice, we don't have a big animation of how it happened. did anybody see it out there? the defendant told the police this is what happened. there were no eyewitnesses to the actual shooting. doubt? and again, what's not reasonable? self-defense. this is what the defendant -- applied to virginia, hunt down fugitives, you'll see the letters, e-mails, et cetera. isn't that true?