SANFORD, Fla. â In his three-hour closing argument on Friday, a lawyer for George Zimmerman said that his client was guilty only of protecting his own life when he fatally shot Trayvon Martin, and he chastised the prosecution as having filled jurorsâ heads with guesswork, not evidence.  Mark OâMara, one of Mr. Zimmermanâs lawyers, told the jury that the prosecution had provided so little evidence of second-degree murder, the main charge, that he wished the verdict form contained three choices: âguilty, not guilty, and completely innocent, because I would ask you to check that one.â  After hearing three weeks of testimony inside the Seminole County courthouse, the jury of six women â five white and one Hispanic â began deliberations at 2:29 p.m. They adjourned at 6 p.m. and were to resume their work at 9 a.m. on Saturday.  They are to decide whether Mr. Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of second-degree murder or of the lesser charge of manslaughter.  If jurors agree it was self-defense, Mr. Zimmerman will be found not guilty.  Mr. Martin, 17, a unarmed black youth who was walking in the rain to a house where he was staying, was shot in the heart by Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman, then 28 and a neighborhood watch volunteer, said that Mr. Martin attacked him and that, fearing for his life, he shot the teenager. There were no witnesses to the shooting, which took place in darkness, shortly after 7 p.m. on Feb. 26, 2012. A six-week delay in charging Mr. Zimmerman stirred outrage, and civil rights leaders led marches in Sanford, Miami and elsewhere around the country.  As he spoke to the jury on Friday, Mr. OâMara held up the defenseâs most compelling evidence in the case: photographs of Mr. Zimmermanâs injured head and nose. And Mr. OâMara walked the jury through an array of testimony and physical evidence suggesting Mr. Martin was on top during the struggle, which is consistent with Mr. Zimmermanâs account to the police.  But above all, Mr. OâMara emphasized to jurors that a claim of self-defense does not require any injuries, only a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.  âNo injuries are necessary to respond with deadly force,â Mr. OâMara said. âNot a cut on a finger. The statute is clear. It requires a reasonable fear of bodily harm.â  The injuries, he said, were âicing on the cake.â  Soon after, on the floor in front of the jury, Mr. OâMara placed a slab of concrete, similar to the pavement on which Mr. Martin repeatedly struck Mr. Zimmermanâs head, he said.  âThat is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but Skittles trying to get home,â he said of Mr. Martin. Then he added, referring to the slab of concrete, âThe suggestion by the state that thatâs not a weapon, that that canât hurt somebody, that that canât cause great bodily harm, is disgusting.â  It was not Mr. Zimmerman who was the aggressor, he said. It was Mr. Martin.  âYou canât look at those pictures and say that what was visited upon George Zimmerman was not evidence of ill will, spite and hatred,â Mr. OâMara said, using legal terms that apply to the second-degree murder charge. Had Mr. Martin survived and been shot through the hip, Mr. OâMara said, âhe would have been charged with aggravated battery, two counts.â  But during the stateâs rebuttal argument, a prosecutor, John Guy, asked jurors to use their common sense.  In his heart, he said, Mr. Zimmerman harbored hatred and ill will toward Mr. Martin. To Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Martin was not a teenager with Skittles in his pocket, chatting with his friend on the telephone, his hooded shirt shielding him from the rain. He was just another criminal casing the neighborhood, Mr. Guy said.  Mr. Zimmermanâs choices, he said, spoke volumes about his mind-set: He got out of his car with a gun on his hip; he disregarded a police dispatcherâs advice not to follow Mr. Martin. And then he chased the teenager as he headed home, setting off the fight that led to Mr. Martinâs death.
In closing arguments, the defense emphasized George Zimmermanâs fears for his own life and the deadly potential in a slab of concrete.