ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal judge has rejected a push by gun rights advocates to let Illinois residents immediately tote firearms in public instead of waiting months for the state to outline the permitting process under its new concealed carry law.

U.S. District Judge William Stiehl on Friday threw out the lawsuit filed in East St. Louis by Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association, siding with Illinois in ruling the suit moot.

Under the last-in-the-nation concealed carry law, passed by the General Assembly July 9 against Gov. Pat Quinn’s vehement objections, Illinois State Police have 180 days to set up a program before accepting applications, plus an additional 90 days to process the forms.

Shepard, in court filings, called such a delay unreasonable and insisted it “constitutes an unacceptable perpetuation of the defendants’ infringement of the Second Amendment rights.” While noting she wasn’t challenging elements of the new permitting process, Shepard said her issue was over “the complete ban on carrying firearms that continues to exist until the permitting process is up and running.”

But Stiehl’s 10-page ruling agreed with the position of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office: Challenging the legality of the span state police have to set up the program would require Shepard and the state rifle group to file a new complaint spelling out why such a wait is onerous or illegal.

It was not immediately clear Monday whether Shepard or the rifle association planned to pursue the matter further. Messages left with one of their attorneys, William Howard, were not immediately returned. A message seeking comment also was left with Todd Vandemyde, a National Rifle Association lobbyist in Illinois.

Madigan spokeswoman Maura Possley told The Associated Press that office may have a public response to Stiehl’s ruling later Monday.

In passing the concealed carry measure, lawmakers narrowly beat a deadline set by the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which last December ruled the state’s ban on public possession of handguns unconstitutional.

Madigan’s office had argued that Shepard’s lawsuit, which first helped bring about the 7th Circuit’s decision, challenged the state’s blanket prohibition on carrying a loaded firearm on public – something the new law now allows.

“The fact that this time period for establishing the permitting process is specified in the statute does not mean that it actually will take that amount of time for the state police to complete the process,” Stiehl wrote.

Shepard, of Cobden in southern Illinois, was 69 years old in 2009 when she was beaten by an intruder and left for dead. She has said that had she not been barred from carrying a gun, she could have thwarted the attack.

What do college girls and bottled water have to do with the emerging American police state? Quite a bit, it seems.

Public outcry has gone viral over an incident in which a college student was targeted and terrorized by Alcohol Beverage Control agents (ABC) after she purchased sparkling water at a grocery store. The girl and her friends were eventually jailed for daring to evade their accosters, who failed to identify themselves or approach the young women in a non-threatening manner.

What makes this particular incident significant (other than the fact that it took place in my hometown of Charlottesville, Va.) is the degree to which it embodies all that is wrong with law enforcement today, both as it relates to the citizenry and the ongoing undermining of our rule of law. To put it bluntly, due in large part to the militarization of the police and the equipping of a wide range of government agencies with weaponry, we are moving into a culture in which law enforcement officials have developed a sense of entitlement that is at odds with the spirit of our Constitution—in particular, the Fourth Amendment.

The incident took place late in the evening of April 11, 2013. Several University of Virginia college students, including 20-year-old Elizabeth Daly, were leaving the Harris Teeter grocery store parking lot after having purchased a variety of foodstuffs for an Alzheimer’s Association sorority charity benefit that evening, including sparkling water, ice cream and cookie dough, when they noticed a man staring at them as they walked to their car in the back of the parking lot.

According to a local newspaper account:

Daly said she and her friends were “terrified” when a man and woman in street clothes began knocking on her car windows in the darkened Harris Teeter parking lot… When Daly slipped her keys into the ignition to crack the windows, a male agent yanked at the door handle, banged on the window and yelled at the women to exit the vehicle… When he began to yell, other men positioned themselves around the car and the woman yelled at Daly to “go, go go,” court records state. One drew a gun. Another jumped onto the hood of the car as Daly and her friends dialed 911 to report the incident, according to the records. The women apologized repeatedly minutes later when they stopped for a car with lights and sirens on, prosecutors said. Daly’s passenger said she was handcuffed without explanation and did not get one until a Charlottesville police officer arrived.

“They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform,” stated Daly. “I couldn’t put my windows down unless I started my car, and when I started my car they began yelling to not move the car, not to start the car. They began trying to break the windows. My roommates and I were … terrified.”

It wasn’t until police arrived with flashing sirens and lights that Elizabeth finally learned the identity of her attackers – they were ABC agents. Likewise, it wasn’t until the arrival of the police that the ABC agents were able to delve into the contents of the girls’ groceries, revealing their suspected contraband to be cans of LaCroix sparkling water.

Despite the fact that Daly and her friends did exactly what any young woman should do when confronted by threatening individuals in a dark parking lot, they were handcuffed and forced to spend the night in jail, with Daly being charged with three felonies—two counts of assaulting a law enforcement officer and one count of eluding police—carrying a potential of fifteen years in jail.

In justifying the agents’ actions, ABC officials point to a protocol that relies on agents having “reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to approach individual(s) they believe have violated the law.”

Either ABC officials are being deliberately disingenuous or they don’t understand that there is a distinct difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the latter of which is required by the Constitution before any government official can search an individual or his property. Then again, this distinction is often overlooked by many law enforcement officials.

In the context of police encounters with citizens in public places, probable cause is required in order for police to conduct surveillance or search an American citizen. The standard of probable cause requires that government agents and/or police have reliable evidence making it probable, i.e., more likely than not, that a crime has been committed by the person to be searched.

Reasonable suspicion, in contrast, requires less in terms of evidence and allows an officer to rely upon his experience and instincts, which, as we have seen, can often be wrong. Yet even at the lowest “reasonable suspicion” standard, an officer must have specific articulable facts supporting his belief that criminal activity is being engaged in – mere hunches or “good faith on the part of the arresting officer” is never sufficient.

While this particular incident did not end in senseless violence, it very easily could have if Daly had confronted her pursuers with any of the legally available non-lethal weapons young women are encouraged to carry today as a defensive measure.

Indeed, as incidents across the nation make clear, law enforcement officials are increasingly responding to challenges to their “authority” by using their weapons. For example, in Long Beach, California, police responded with heavy firepower to a perceived threat by a man holding a water hose. The 35-year-old man had reportedly been watering his neighbor’s lawn when police, interpreting his “grip” on the water hose to be consistent with that of someone discharging a firearm, opened fire. The father of two was pronounced dead at the scene.

These are not isolated overreactions on the part of rogue officers. As I document in my new book,A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, they are emblematic of a growing tension over the use of militarized police to perform relatively routine tasks, resulting in situations fraught with danger to both civilians and police alike. From full tactical SWAT teams executing no-knock search warrants on the homes of law-abiding citizens over nothing more than a suspicion that the occupant owns a gun to the unlawful arrest and forced institutionalization of decorated military veterans over Facebook posts critical of the government, the events described above are becoming all too familiar in cities and towns across the country.

Moreover, in light of shooting incidents across the country involving unarmed citizens and heavily armed police, increasing numbers of Americans are understandably concerned about whatever factors, whether it’s an arsenal of militarized weapons and an increasing reliance on lethal weapons or insufficient training in nonviolent conflict resolution, are contributing to a seemingly “trigger happy” tendency on the part of some law enforcement officials.

This begs the question, what constitutes a threat to an officer or resisting arrest?

Among the charges levied at Daly were that she allegedly assaulted an officer and attempted to elude police, never mind that the “assault” constituted her car brushing against plainclothes, unidentifiable officers who had been banging on the windows and climbing on her car. It is particularly telling that ABC officials believe “[t]his whole unfortunate incident [involving Daly] could have been avoided had the occupants complied with law enforcement requests.”

For example, Miami-Dade police slammed a 14-year-old boy to the ground, putting him in a chokehold and handcuffing him after he allegedly gave them “dehumanizing stares” and walked away from them, which the officers found unacceptable. According to Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta, “His body language was that he was stiffening up and pulling away… When you have somebody resistant to them and pulling away and somebody clenching their fists and flailing their arms, that’s a threat. Of course we have to neutralize the threat.”

This mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be “neutralized” is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets law enforcement officers beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment. It also serves to chill the First Amendment’s assurances of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It’s bad enough that the police now look like the military—with their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of lethal weapons—but they function like them, as well. No longer do they act as peace officers guarding against violent criminals. And no more do we have a civilian police force entrusted with serving and protecting the American people and keeping the peace.

What we are dealing with is a militarized government entity that has clearly lost sight of its overarching duty: to abide by the dictates of the U.S. Constitution and act as public servants in service to the taxpayers of this country rather than commanders directing underlings who must obey without question.

Neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman was cleared of all charges Saturday in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager whose killing unleashed furious debate across the U.S. over racial profiling, self-defense and equal justice.

Zimmerman, 29, blinked and barely smiled when the verdict was announced. Supporters of Martin’s family yelled “No! No!” after the verdict.

Zimmerman could have been convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter. But the jury of six women, all but one of them white, reached a verdict of not guilty after deliberating well into the night Saturday.

The jurors considered nearly three weeks of often wildly conflicting testimony over who was the aggressor on the rainy night the 17-year-old was shot while walking through the gated townhouse community where he was staying.

Defense attorneys said the case was classic self-defense, claiming Martin knocked Zimmerman down and was slamming the older man’s head against the concrete sidewalk when Zimmerman fired his gun.

Prosecutors called Zimmerman a liar and portrayed him was a “wannabe cop” vigilante who had grown frustrated by break-ins in his neighborhood committed primarily by young black men. Zimmerman assumed Martin was up to no good and took the law into his own hands, prosecutors said.

State Attorney Angela Corey said after the verdict that she believed second-degree murder was the appropriate charge because Zimmerman’s mindset “fit the bill of second-degree murder.”

“We charged what we believed we could prove,” Corey said.

As the verdict drew near, police and city leaders in the Orlando suburb of Sanford and other parts of Florida said they were taking precautions against the possibility of mass protests or unrest in the event of an acquittal.

“There is no party in this case who wants to see any violence,” Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger said immediately after jurors began deliberating. “We have an expectation upon this announcement that our community will continue to act peacefully.”

The verdict came a year and a half after civil rights protesters angrily demanded Zimmerman be prosecuted.

Zimmerman wasn’t arrested for 44 days after the Feb. 26, 2012, shooting as police in Sanford insisted that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law on self-defense prohibited them from bringing charges. Florida gives people wide latitude to use deadly force if they fear death or bodily harm.

Martin’s parents, along with civil rights leaders such as the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, argued that Zimmerman – whose father is white and whose mother is Hispanic – had racially profiled their son. And they accused investigators of dragging their feet because Martin was a black teenager.

Before a special prosecutor assigned to the case ordered Zimmerman’s arrest, thousands of protesters gathered in Sanford, Miami, New York and elsewhere, many wearing hoodies like the one Martin had on the night he died. They also carried Skittles and a can of iced tea, items Martin had in his pocket. President Barack Obama weighed in, saying that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon.”

Despite the racially charged nature of the case, race was barely mentioned at the trial. Even after the verdict, prosecutors said race was not about race.

“This case has never been about race or the right to bear arms,” Corey said. “We believe this case all along was about boundaries, and George Zimmerman exceeded those boundaries.”

One exception was the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, the Miami teen who was talking to Martin by phone moments before he was shot. She said he described being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker” as he walked through the neighborhood.

Jeantel gave some of the trial’s most riveting testimony. She said she overheard Martin demand, “What are you following me for?” and then yell, “Get off! Get off!” before his cellphone went dead.

The jurors had to sort out clashing testimony from 56 witnesses in all, including police, neighbors, friends and family members.

For example, witnesses who got fleeting glimpses of the fight in the darkness gave differing accounts of who was on top. And Martin’s parents and Zimmerman’s parents both claimed that the person heard screaming for help in the background of a neighbor’s 911 call was their son. Numerous other relatives and friends weighed in, too, as the recording was played over and over in court. Zimmerman had cuts and scrapes on his face and the back of his head, but prosecutors suggested the injuries were not serious.

To secure a second-degree murder conviction, prosecutors had to convince the jury that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved” state of mind – that is, with ill will, hatred or spite. Prosecutors said he demonstrated that when he muttered, “F—— punks. These a——-. They always get away” during a call to police as he watched Martin walk through his neighborhood.

To win a manslaughter conviction, prosecutors had to convince the jury only that Zimmerman killed without lawful justification.

With police and civic leaders urging calm, a jury began deliberating George Zimmerman’s fate Friday after hearing dueling portraits of the neighborhood watch captain: a cop wannabe who took the law into his own hands or a well-meaning volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin because he feared for his life.

As the jury got the murder case, police in this Orlando suburb went on national television to plead for peace in Sanford and across the country, no matter what the verdict.

“There is no party in this case who wants to see any violence,” Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger said. “We have an expectation upon this announcement that our community will continue to act peacefully.”

During closing arguments, Zimmerman’s lawyers put a concrete slab and two life-size cardboard cutouts in front of the jury box in one last attempt to convince the panel Zimmerman shot the unarmed black 17-year-old in self-defense while his head was being slammed against the pavement.

Attorney Mark O’Mara used the slab to make the point that it could serve as a weapon. He showed the cutouts of Zimmerman and Martin to demonstrate that the teenager was considerably taller. And he displayed a computer-animated depiction of the fight based on Zimmerman’s account.

He said prosecutors hadn’t met their burden of proving Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, he said, the case was built on “could’ve beens” and “maybes.”

“If it hasn’t been proven, it’s just not there,” O’Mara said. “You can’t fill in the gaps. You can’t connect the dots. You’re not allowed to.”

“Isn’t that every child’s worst nightmare, to be followed on the way home in the dark by a stranger?” Guy said. “Isn’t that every child’s worst fear?”

One juror, a young woman, appeared to wipe away a tear as Guy said nothing would ever bring back Martin.

The sequestered jury of six women – all but one of them white – will have to sort through a lot of conflicting testimony from police, neighbors, friends and family members.

Jurors deliberated for three and a half hours when they decided to stop Friday evening. About two hours into their discussions, they asked for a list of the evidence. They will resume deliberations Saturday morning.

Witnesses gave differing accounts of who was on top during the struggle, and Martin’s parents and Zimmerman’s parents both claimed that the voice heard screaming for help in the background of a 911 call was their son’s.

Zimmerman, 29, is charged with second-degree murder, but the jury will also be allowed to consider manslaughter. Under Florida’s laws involving gun crimes, manslaughter could end up carrying a penalty as heavy as the one for second-degree murder: life in prison.

The judge’s decision to allow the jury to consider manslaughter was a potentially heavy blow to the defense: It could give jurors who aren’t convinced the shooting amounted to murder a way to hold Zimmerman responsible for the killing.

To win a manslaughter conviction, prosecutors must show only that Zimmerman killed without lawful justification.

O’Mara dismissed the prosecution’s contention that Zimmerman was a “crazy guy” patrolling his townhouse complex and “looking for people to harass” when he saw Martin. O’Mara also disputed prosecutors’ claim that Zimmerman snapped when he saw Martin because there had been a rash of break-ins in the neighborhood, mostly by young black men.

The defense attorney said Zimmerman at no point showed ill will, hatred or spite during his confrontation with Martin – which is what prosecutors must prove for second-degree murder.

“That presumption isn’t based on any fact whatsoever,” O’Mara said.

In contrast, prosecutors argued Zimmerman showed ill will when he whispered profanities to a police dispatcher over his cellphone while following Martin through the neighborhood. They said Zimmerman “profiled” the teenager as a criminal.

Guy said Zimmerman violated the cornerstone of neighborhood watch volunteer programs, which is to observe and report, not follow a suspect.

Zimmerman’s account of how he grabbed his gun from his holster at his waist as Martin straddled him is physically impossible, Guy said.

“The defendant didn’t shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to; he shot him because he wanted to,” Guy said. “That’s the bottom line.”

But to invoke self-defense, Zimmerman only had to believe he was facing great bodily harm, his attorney said. He asked jurors not to let their sympathies for Martin’s parents interfere with their decision.

“It is a tragedy, truly,” O’Mara said. “But you can’t allow sympathy.”

With the verdict drawing near, police and city leaders in Sanford and other parts of Florida said they have taken precautions for the possibility of mass protests or even civil unrest if Zimmerman, whose father is white and whose mother is Hispanic, is acquitted.

Zimmerman’s brother, Robert, said in a statement he hoped the public would remain calm.

“Though we maintain George committed no crime whatsoever, we acknowledge that the people who called for George’s arrest and subsequent trial have now witnessed both events come to pass,” he said. “We hope now that as Americans we will all respect the rule of law, which begins with respecting the verdict.

There were big protests in Sanford and other cities across the country last year when authorities waited 44 days before arresting Zimmerman.

About a dozen protesters, most of them from outside central Florida, gathered outside the courthouse as the jury deliberated. Martin supporters outnumbered those for Zimmerman.

UPDATE: The judge has ruled against allowing the jury to consider the third-degree murder charge against Zimmerman.

Original story below:

George Zimmerman’s defense attorney exploded at the prosecution Thursday after they attempted to have the jury also consider a third-degree murder charge based on child abuse in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

“Oh my God. Just when I thought it couldn’t get more bizarre, the state is seeking third-degree murder based on child abuse? Is the court going to give this any serious contention or consideration, because if so we have a lot of talking to do,” defense attorney Don West demanded.

The showdown came ahead of closing arguments in the second-degree murder case as prosecutors requested the jury be instructed to also consider lesser charges for Zimmerman. Judge Debra Nelson said the jury may consider manslaughter as a lesser charge.

Prosecutor Richard Mantei argued that third-degree murder should also be included based on the notion that Zimmerman committed child abuse when he fatally shot Martin, 17. Nelson put off immediately ruling on the matter.

West accused the prosecution of springing it on the defense at the last-minute, saying he only received an email that morning along with “10 or 15 cases” to support the claim.

“Obviously he has spent hours, if not days, if not in fact maybe more than a year plotting for this moment when he can spring it on us and the court,” West said. “Somewhere we wondered why the state would put this vague allegation in the information that Trayvon Martin was 17. No other charge of child abuse, no evidence of anything other than this statement that Trayvon Martin was a minor, 17 years old.”

“Judge, this was a trick,” West fumed a few minutes later. “Doesn’t the court understand this was a trick by the state?”

An Indiana homeowner woke up Monday morning to find a hatchet-wielding intruder in his home. Not exactly the most pleasant way to start your day.

However, the homeowner, who hasn’t been identified, was ready to exercise his Second Amendment right and defend his life. After being woken up by the sound of an intruder breaking in, the man retrieved his firearm and confronted the intruder.

WSJV-TV reports the intruder arrived on a moped before he shattered the back window and broke into a residence in LaPorte County, Ind., Monday morning armed with a hatchet.

Following a tense confrontation, the homeowner opened fire and fatally shot the suspect, later identified as 23-year-old Jason Rabe. The suspect died at 9:15 a.m. of a gunshot wound to the upper left chest, according to LaPorte County Coroner John Sullivan.

The homeowner appeared to have the support of the local community.

“If someone is in [your] house, you have the second amendment right for a reason – to use it. Might as well,” local resident Michael Clizbe told WSJV-TV.

Others, like resident Steven O’Donnell, said the break-in worries him. “Definitely going to lock my doors every night,” he said.

While Rabe’s death has been ruled a homicide, LaPorte County Sheriff Mike Mollenhauer said he doesn’t expect charges to be filed against the homeowner.

“I don’t anticipate there would by any charges whatsoever,”  he told the LaPorte County News.

The homeowner was reportedly “extremely upset” that he had to kill another man.

Illinois became the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns as lawmakers rushed Tuesday to finalize a proposal ahead of a federal court’s deadline.

Both chambers of the Legislature voted to override changes Gov. Pat Quinn made to the bill they approved more than a month ago. Even some critics of the law argued it was better to approve something rather than risk the courts allowing virtually unregulated concealed weapons in Chicago, which has endured severe gun violence in recent months.

The Senate voted 41-17 in favor of the override Tuesday afternoon after the House voted 77-31, margins that met the three-fifths threshold needed to set aside the amendatory veto. Quinn had used his veto authority to suggest changes such as prohibiting guns in restaurants that serve alcohol and limiting gun-toting citizens to one firearm at a time.

Quinn had predicted a “showdown in Springfield” after a week of Chicago appearances to drum up support for the changes he made in the amendatory veto. The Chicago Democrat faces a tough re-election fight next year and has already drawn a primary challenge from former White House chief of state Bill Daley, who has criticized the governor’s handling of the debate over guns and other issues.

Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democrat from southern Illinois, predicted a history-making day in which lawmakers would dismiss Quinn’s changes as politically motivated.

“He’s trying to cater to, pander to Cook County,” Phelps said, referring to the nation’s second most-populous county, which encompasses Chicago. “And I don’t blame him … because that’s where his votes are.”

The law as approved by the Legislature permits anyone with a Firearm Owner’s Identification card who has passed a background check and undergone gun-safety training of 16 hours — longest of any state — to obtain a concealed-carry permit for $150.

The Illinois State Police would have six months to set up a system to start accepting applications. Spokeswoman Monique Bond said police expect 300,000 applications in the first year.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that it’s unconstitutional for Illinois to ban concealed carry. The court gave state officials until June 9 to rectify the shortfall, and later extended that by a month.

Opinions varied about what would have happened had a law not taken effect. Gun supporters said it would have meant with no law governing gun possession, any type of firearm could be carried anywhere, at any time. Those supporting stricter gun control said local communities would have been able to set up tough restrictions.

With the negotiated law, gun-rights advocates got the permissive law they wanted, instead of a New York-style plan that gives law enforcement authorities wide discretion over who gets permits. In exchange, Chicago Democrats repulsed by gun violence got a long list of places deemed off limits to guns, including schools, libraries, parks and mass transit buses and trains.

But one part of the compromise had to do with establishments that serve alcohol. The law will allow diners to carry weapons into restaurants and other establishments where liquor comprises no more than 50 percent of gross sales. One of the main provisions of Quinn’s amendatory veto was to nix guns in businesses that serve any alcohol.

He also wants to limit citizens to carrying one gun at a time, a gun that is completely concealed, not “mostly concealed” as the initiative decrees. He prefers banning guns from private property unless an owner puts up a sign allowing guns — the reverse of what’s in the proposal — and would give employers more power to prohibit guns at work.

Senate President John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat, gave a nod to Quinn’s wishes by putting before his caucus new legislation that incorporated the changes Quinn prefers. But Democrats had not said by early Tuesday whether they would vote on the bill. Phelps said he didn’t know whether the House would consider it, although House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, kept the chamber in session in case a new bill arrived from the Senate.

Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont said it’s clear the issue would be addressed again in the future but the Senate should focus Tuesday on meeting the court deadline.

“For today, we should stick with the agreement that was in place,” Radogno said. “It’s important to follow through.”

After taking less than a week to call 18 witnesses, George Zimmerman’s defense attorneys rested their case Wednesday in the neighborhood watch volunteer’s second-degree murder trial.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys planned to work out the jury instructions before presenting closing arguments on Thursday. Judge Debra Nelson said the case could be sent to six jurors either late that day or the next.

Zimmerman never testified. But jurors saw repeated video recordings of Zimmerman telling his side of the story to investigators. He claims that he shot Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed, in self-defense while the teen straddled and punched him.

The defense started its case last Friday, and it presented half as many witnesses in half of the time that prosecutors did. Zimmerman’s friends, parents and uncle testified that it’s him screaming for help on a 911 call that captured sounds of the fatal fight. Martin’s mother and brother had testified for the prosecution that it’s Martin yelling for help.

Convincing the jury of who was screaming for help on the 911 tape became the primary goal of prosecutors and defense attorneys because it would help jurors evaluate Zimmerman’s self-defense claim.

Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman Sr., was the last witness called by the defense on Wednesday, and he said it’s his son yelling for help on the call.

Defense attorneys also called a forensic pathologist who testified that the forensics evidence supports Zimmerman’s account of what happened.

Zimmerman observed Martin while driving in his neighborhood, called police and the fight ensued after the neighborhood watch volunteer got out of his vehicle.

Some civil rights activists argued that the delay in charging Zimmerman was influenced by Martin’s race, and protests were held around the nation in the 44 days between the fatal fight and Zimmerman’s arrest. Martin was black and Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic.

The defense rested on a day when the judge made two rulings that prevented them from introducing pieces of evidence. Defense attorneys had wanted to present text messages discussing fighting from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone and an animation depicting Zimmerman’s fatal fight with Martin. But Nelson sided with prosecutors, who had argued the animation is inaccurate and the texts were irrelevant.

Immediately after the defense rested, prosecutors called their first rebuttal witness – Adam Pollock, the gym owner who had trained Zimmerman. But prosecutors decided not to question Pollock after the judge presiding over the case ruled he couldn’t be questioned about a video put on his gym’s website showing his court testimony at the trial.

Shortly after, court was adjourned until Thursday morning.

Earlier Wednesday, a former neighbor of Zimmerman’s, Olivia Bertalan, described how he had helped her find a lock for her townhome’s sliding door and offered any help he could after burglars broke into her home.

“I was just appreciative he was offering a hand and said I could spend time with his wife if I wanted to during the day,” she said.

Defense attorneys also called public safety consultant Dennis Root to testify that Martin was in better physical shape than Zimmerman, and that the neighborhood watch volunteer wasn’t any athlete.

“He would find himself lacking when compared to Mr. Martin,” Root said of Zimmerman.

During cross-examination of Root, prosecutor John Guy used a life-sized foam mannequin in front of the jury to simulate the body positions of Zimmerman and Martin at the time of the shooting.

Straddling the dummy, Guy proposed a scenario in which Martin was on top of Zimmerman and asked Root if it was possible that Martin was backing away from Zimmerman at the time of the fatal gunshot.

“Yes,” Root said.

Using the same mannequin during further questioning of Root, defense attorney Mark O’Mara challenged the notion of Martin retreating. Root said that while multiple gun angles were possible, he had no specific information to say what position Martin was in when he was shot.

“I think you’re not going to be involved in a conflict like this without it being dynamic,” Root said.