sima cannot self-publishing in the form of pricing, but also an editorial point of view, looking at self-publishing and saying what is working in self-publishing because this is that the readers are demanding. i was going to go back to something that keith said. he talked about the shift in authority and a shift to author. i say there's been a shift in consumer and the reader because they are saying this is what i want to read and the authors and publishers are responding to that because of digital, because of self-publishing. we very much look to help us see now new genre we all talk about, new adults. >> giveth in addition. >> no adults, adult contemporary fiction and 18 to 25-year-old protagonists. it has the better the feel of young adults because it's got the high-intensity feeling in the conflict. but not quite adult because we are dealing with the coming out of college, all the issues he saw what appeared as if they are genre to place two years ago. nobody knows how to solve it, nobody knew that america was an know existed, nobody knows would be at thing. the last year we've seen new adults

the manslaughter by instruction goes hand in hand with the self-defense, self-defense is the justification for the shooting if there is to be one. so the jury presumably, if greg is right, and i think he may be right, they're going down the line of instructions, they will get to self-defense. they will either find the shooting to be justifiable or they will not find it to be justifiable. the only wrinkle in that is that o'mara told them, why don't you start with self-defense and that may shortcut the whole process. if they did that, they've already dismissed self-defense. if they haven't, they will be progressing to that soon. but the manslaughter instruction doesn't really turn on whether or not in this case george zimmerman was the aggressor, because there hasn't been any evidence of aggression. under the gibbs case, the supreme court said -- or the florida court said that aggression has to be physical in nature. following even using racial epithets does not constitute aggression that would warrant exclusion from the self-defense statute. there is no evidence of that. >> judge alex, i wa

and it's not a case about self-defense. it's a case about self-denial. the defendant didn't shoot trayvon martin because he had to. he shot him because he wanted to. that's the bottom line. what do we owe trayvon martin? 16 years and 21 days, forever. he was a son, he was a brother, he was a friend. and the last thing he did on this earth was try to get home. trayvon martin may not have the defendant's blood on his hands, but george zimmerman will forever have trayvon martin's blood on his. forever. >> trayvon martin was killed february 26th, 2012, one year, four months and 16 days later. a jury in a court of law is deciding whether george zimmerman should be criminally responsible for his death. every second it goes by brings us closer to that verdict. with me now is my all-star legal panel, joy reid, managing editor the grio.com, former prosecutor faith jenkins, defense attorney ken padowitz, and former prosecutor marcia clark. she is author of "killer ambition." thank you all for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> great to be here. >> thank yo

lisa bloom, the imperfect self-defense scenario. we'll hear about that for the rest of the day. >> that's right. and it is so interesting to me to listen to this cross examination because it gives you insight into where this defense team is going, probably on their closing argument. one of the things he's talking to this law professor is about it doesn't matter so much who started the fight who was the aggressor. what matters more is what happened at the time that the shot went out. you know, is that a concession from the defense that george zimmerman started the fight? is that a concession that perhaps the prosecution is gain something ground on that? perhaps. perhaps. that's what is so interesting to me in listening to all of this. i don't know how much the jury is absorbing about the law of self-defense. but clearly this was a strong prosecution witness. this is a witness who said that george zimmerman was a very good student and learned about self-defense and stand your ground. that's inconsistent with the statement that he made

it's a reasonable doubt as to self-defense. self-defense suspected? you have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. may not be self-defense. you're not quite sure. not guilty. unlikely self-defense but it might be. you have a doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. less than likely is it self-defense. this was a 50/50 i wouldn't vote self-defense. if this was a civil trial. highly unlikely that it's self-defense but i have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. the state has p

and it's not a case about self-defense. it's a case about self-denial. the defendant didn't shoot trayvon martin because he had to. he shot him because he wanted to. that's the bottom line. >> what do we owe trayvon martin? 16 years and 21 days forever. he was a sons, he was a brother, he was a friend. and the last thing he did on this earth was try to get home. >> trayvon martin may not have the defendant's blood on his hands, was george zimmerman will forever have trayvon martin's blood on his, forever. >> trayvon martin was killed february 26th, 2012, one year, four months, and 16 days later, a jury in a court of law is deciding whether george zimmerman should be criminally responsible for his death. every second that goes by brings us closer to that verdict. with me now is my all-star legal panel, joy reid, managing editor of thegrio.com, former prosecutor, faye jenkins, defense attorney, kim patowitz, and former prosecutor, marcia claude. she's author of "killer ambition." thank you all for being here. >> thank you. >> great to be here. >> thank you

even if he says it's self defense and his lawyers argue self defense, he does not have to testify.still has the right to remain silent. >> the tapes can be used to prove his case. he doesn't have to physically speak out now. >> they did use them. the prosecution used those and used those under an exception that says prior inconsistent statements using it to say he's a liar. >> perhaps he doesn't want to take the stand because he doesn't want to perjure himself. >> because he doesn't want to be cross examined. cenk: the great injustice was when he was not charged and they did the toxicology report on the victim, the background check on the victim and they didn't do it on the guy who shot him, right? that was the great injustice. that injustice has been involved or cured because we're having a trial and let the jury decide. if they come out with something i don't agree with, so be it, i am not on the jury. based on what we've seen, robin you swung me. >> i did? >> you did, but maybe not in the direction you think. i always thought it's going to be really hard to prove right? but you

self-defense likely. reasonable doubt. self-defense. is self-defense suspected? well, you have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. may not be self-defense. you're not quite sure. not guilty. unlikely self-defense. but it might be. you've got a doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense, not guilty. less than likely is it self-defense, this was a 50/50, i wouldn't vote self-defense, this was a civil trial. highly unlikely that it's self-defense. but i had a reasonable doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. the state has proven to me, to you, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense properly, i have no doubt or reasonable doubt that the state has convinced me he didn't act in self-defense the way he should have, than he's guilty. and only then is he guilty. so let's talk about my burden to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt of his innocence. at the risk of confusing you, i'm going to request that you now allow me to confuse you as to the standards. but i want to show you what the evi

a story that lined self defense to a tee?ey are trying to establish remember there was a neighbor who testified last week, john, not john good but the other john who was describing george zimmerman's affect after the shooting. he said he was calm. when he went to call the wife george zimmerman erupted and said just tell her i shot somebody. he was clear. he was thinking. he had the knowledge to craft a story that would work in court at some point if he were to get charged. >> i think you want to jump in on this. i am not going to let you do it. there was a lot of testimony and a lot of evidence today and the gun made an appearance. it is what some might call the murder weapon and others call the self-defense weapon. the expert was a slight woman who knows a lot about gun. i want to play the moment in court when she describes what kind of weapon this is and what kind of weapon it isn't. i want you to listen for the words self-defense. have a look. >> the firearm used for self-defense has to be ready to use, correct? >> potenti

two, is that self-defense and its reasonable hypothesis of self-defense what it is and specifically contradictedstate's case. under walker, woods, barwick, and now stieh, they have failed to do that. so if we look at stieh, which is interesting, out of the second dca. i don't know that i quoted it. i apologize if i have already. stating that the joh should have been granted once the defense had presented a prominent case of self-defense. it goes to a pretty good analysis of 776. in that case they were talking about defense of others. of course, the same standard applies as we have here today. jenkins, i think, is one of the most instructive cases. that's cited at 94372910. the reason why is because jenkins, a 2006 case -- remember, as an aside, there are not a lot of cases about judgments of acquittal in self-defense cases after 2006. the reason why is, of course, we now have self-defense immunity hearings as an alternative to judgment of acquittal arguments in a trial. we did not avail ourselves of that pretrial determination of immunity. so many other people in most of the other case law have

it's a reasonable doubt as to self-defense. self-defense suspected? well, you have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. may not be self-defense. you're not quite sure. not guilty. unlikely self-defense but it might be. you have a doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. less than likely is it self-defense. this was a 50/50 i wouldn't vote self-defense. if this was a civil trial. highly unlikely that it's self-defense but i have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. the state has proven to me, to you, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense properly. i have no doubt, a reasonable doubt, that the state has convinced me he didn't act in self-defense the way he should have then he's guilty. >> cnn legal analyst paul callan, what's reasonable to me or you or the next person may not be reasonable to another person. >> absolutely. mark o'mara tries to make it look like reasonable doubt is mt. everest and it's a mountain which can't be climbed. he makes

facie case of self-defense. i'm going to assume the court is satisfied they have done so because if they haven't, school is out already. i believe the defendant started this or that at a very minimum, trayvon martin had as much right to defend himself as this defendant claims he did. but i'll get back to that notion in a minute. but where a defendant claims self-defense, the state has to rebut it. the state may present such evidence through rebuttal witnesses or by inference in its case in chief. moving across to the next column, laesure argued the state failed to meet its burden because there were no eyewitnesses to contract did her testimony and the medical evidence did not contra dkt her testimony. she argues her inconsistent statements to the police were nothing more than the use of extremely poor judgment after she panicked. this is sounding exceedingly familiar. however, even when there are no other witnesses to the events besides the defendant and in this case there weren't, even mr. good was long gone be

these are both self insured plans. so when we are, i think it's important when we look at these side by side, kaiser is a fully insured indemnity plan. while we can make actuarial presentations, we can view disaster or emergency or terrible flu season that can affect this rate. these are not present in the calculation. >> thank you. i'm sorry if it's taking me a while understand this. it looks like the kaiser former care act taxes and fees is 1.77 percent. you can factoring that to a $9.3 million increase. i don't understand how blue shield is going up 3.2 percent and we have a $20 million saving. is blue shield covering that itself and kaiser is charging us and potentially gouging us in other jurisdictions? >> no. blue shield doesn't really involve blue shield at all. the $20 million savings is what we realized in the first year of the blue shield self insured plan. what happens when you move to self insurance. a year ago we were in a fully insured plan with blue shield. blue shield continues to be responsible for all

he was acting in self-defense.how me how you have proven that there is no reasonable hypothesis of innocence, innocence being equated to self-defense. and he was told not to follow. circumstantial evidence, they have no evidence to support that he did. now, i don't want to just sentence for sentence go over what mr. manti said but when we talk about circumstantial evidence, we have to do it with a filter of excluding a reasonable hypothesis. now all of a sudden, george's decision, you've heard the same half a dozen times. some sinister decision, the state wants you to believe, that yorge is george is on the phone, where should i meet you? should i meet you at the clubhouse? yes. or maybe my car? yes. and i guess it was at that precise moment in time that he became the mastermind murderer that the state wants you to believe he is. i'm not saying this for effect. i'm saying this because if this is their circumstantial evidence they want you to consider, it has to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. it has t

and ever important self-defense, literally the jury instruction.e'll put that up on the screen and pick it apart with our lawyers. stick around for that as we awaited the verdict in the highly emotionally charged trial in florida. >> heather: will there is some other news going on today. in san francisco, police now identifying a third victim of the asiana airlines crash. a chinese student died from her injuries yesterday. she had been in intensive care for nearly a weekly and was a schoolmate of the two other victims, two -- two other 16-year-old girls killed in the crash. one of those girls who died on the day of the crash was hit by a fire truck speeding to the scene. police say she was covered in fire retardant foam that was sprayed. they simply did not see her. her exact cause of death is unclear. a faulty rail joint is the focus of an investigation into yesterday's deadly train crash near paris as several cars overturned when the train crashed into a platform. at least six people died. dozens more were injured. all of this came at the start o

>> self-defense is clear and gives us reasons and signals. you're allowed to resist force with like force. so if i scream and curse at you, you can scream back and yell back. you can't punch me and you can't shoot me and can't take a knife to me. if we were to presume to george zimmerman's aggressiveness and following him and say george confronted him, even if that were absolutely true, trayvon martin did not have a legal right to attack george zimmerman physically and when he upped the ante by doing that, he caused a cascading round of events that ended up leading to his own death. >> what i was struck by in the trial was the cascading series of events from a legal perspective, really only start when the physical confrontation begins, whereas logic to me indicates it should have started earlier when george zimmerman is driving along and sees trayvon martin and gets out of his vehicle and calls the authorities, et cetera, et cetera, but none of that seemed to be relevant in terms of the law. is that an area where the law could possibly be rev

self-defense is a affirmtive defense. it's a big self-defense.'s not one of those things that you are just going to just whisk through in a day or after you teach it, you're going to neglect from bringing it back into the classroom, so it was something i constantly reiterated. i was the type of professor before i gave any test, i gave a review for the test and it was something that i think the students really wanted to know about. it was so practical that it was, there was, they were very much engaged in class discussion regarding the issue. so i remember, you know, talking about it quite a few times, not just on the one particular occasion. >> that's all for questions. >> cross? >> i just give me a second. >> sure. >> good morning, mr. carter. >> good morning. my nach is dovrn don west. i'm one of the attorneys for mr. zimmerman. do you see george over here? >> how are you doing, george? >> and many o'mara is co-counsel. >> how are you doing? >> how long have you held your current position in jag core corps? >> october would be three years. >> a

and i suggested that's not when self-defense began. self-defense began when he chose to confront trayvon and when he didn't, he shot him to death. >> that's a view many people have and also say to me, look, what about trayvon martin's right to defend himself? wasn't he engaged in a form of self-defense himself and where does his right to do that supersede george zimmerman who has a gun? >> right, i tell you, tom has just articulated so perfectly. this is a man told to stay in the car. he has a weapon. i believe he confronted him. the question is going to really become whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. but there is no question in my mind that he was the aggressor and in my mind, he has lost the right to say he was self-defending himself if he is the one whose the aggressor in the situation and you're right, trayvon then also has rights in this matter. and this is a very complicated case and it's going to be very interesting to see what the jury ends up doing with this. >> mel, i can see you shaking y

if the jury rejects self-defens self-defense -- mash o' -- mark o'mara says he overstated his injury, he conceded that in closing arguments. but that moment was he in fear? and not just of something bad but of great bodily injury or death. that's what the jury has to find for self-defense. >> does it become more difficult since we do not hear from him himself? since he didn't take the stand and there are not many defense lawyers that would have their client take the stand but we don't know what happened during that period of time. >> i think the problem also from george zimmerman is that we did hear from him and where we heard from him was in the most ill-advised television interview in history. if you don't believe george zimmerman and you don't believe elements of his story, such as saying he didn't know anything about self-defense law, stand your ground law, but he actually did, such as he did not follow trayvon martin, when it's pretty definitive that he did. if you don't believe what he said and you heard it from his own mouth from the interview with sean hannity, it calls in eve

self-defense law and murder, yes.defense, it was something the students really wanted to know about because it was practical, and they were very much engaged. martha: and we're told that they were taking copious notes during this period, the jury. and on that note, we'll be right back. ♪ [ male announcer ] with everyone on the go this summer, now's the perfect time to get home security for protection while you're away. and right now you can get adt security installed starting at just $49, a savings of $250. but hurry. offer ends soon. don't wait. call right now or visit adt.com. this is a fire that didn't destroy a home. this is a break-in that didn't devastate a family. this is the reason why. adt. you can't predict when bad things will happen, but you can help protect yourself with the fast alarm response of ad, with 24/7 monitoring against burglary, fire, and high levels of carbon monoxide starting at just over $1 a day. this is the computer that didn't get stolen, keeping priceless photos and financial records saf

you know, we have again the self-defense aspect. one of the reasons why the defense stayed away from the lesser included defense in arguing that because they feel if you find it for second degree, then you have to find it for the lesser included. >> we'll go through the elements of second defense. lisa, paul, tad, karen are all staying with us. coming up, the jury's been instructed on the law and now they have the case. let's get into the what may sway them as they deliberate the fate of george zimmerman. later to the role race may play in the jury's decision. this is "hardball," the place for politics. pores just by washing your face? [ female announcer ] neutrogena® pore refining cleanser. alpha-hydroxy and exfoliating beads work to clean and tighten pores so they can look half their size. pores...shrink 'em down to size! [ female announcer ] pore refining cleanser. neutrogena.® [ female announcer ] pore refining cleanser. i'm gonna have to ask you to power down your little word game. i think your friends will understand. oh...no,

and very related issue of self- defense. is that how self- defense related to manslaughter. i would want to know that. if they read manslaughter instructions to the jury, i want the self defense statutes read to them. >> let's pop it up on the screen. manslaughter on the screen for you now. intentional act that caused the death of martin. a merely negligent act is not manslaughter. >> i have seen many, when they come out and the judge said we would like to reinstruct the law on count three. the point is, lawyers get together. one thing people have to realize, being a lawyer at trial and what you do in jury deliberations is important as the trial. and the strategy of what you will agree to and not to and when you are going to argue with the judge and when you are not is huge part of trying your case. >> i want to make it clear, that was not just a blanket definition of manslaughter. those words were the instructions that the judge gave. they are broad. those are the actual instructions that the judge gave to the six jurors. is this an opportunity if you are the defense to get

he knows self-defense. he knows stand your ground. he knows whatever the state wants you to think he knows, but he doesn't know miranda? no, no, no. he knows miranda but he was such the master mind that he could, without knowing any of the evidence, who was watching, who was videotaping? who was doing anything? they don't know any of that. he had all figured out. really? it defies explanation. what doesn't defy explanation are things like this. the mud on the knees. evidencing the mounting. what doesn't defy explanation is f officer tim smith's testimony that he had mud all over his back evidencing i would opine that he was on his back in the grass and he was getting beat up. manalo, tim smith, wagner. everybody else who saw those injuri injuries. okay. you don't need a graphic but you do still get me going over some of the instructions with you. reasonable doubt. what is it? can't tell you any more than we have. the judge read it to you a couple times already and you'll get it again. reasonable doubt, don't start with the premise. pr

reasonable doubt of self-defense. is self-defense detective? we have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. it may not be self-defense, you are not quite sure. not guilty. up likely self defense buff it might be. you have a doubt whether it's self-defense? not guilty. less than likely it's self-defense ... this was a 50-50 i wouldn't vote self-defense. this is a civil trial. highly unlikely it's self defense. but i have a reasonable doubt as to whether it's self-defense. not guilty. the state has proven to you beyond another exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense properly. i have no doubt, a reasonable doubt that the state has convinced me he didn't act in self defense the way he should have. then he's guilty. and only then is he guilty. so ... let's talk about my burden to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt of his innocence at the risk of confusing you, i'm going to request that you not allow me to confuse as to the standards. but i want to show you what the evidence has shown concerning my client's a

that means would no longer have self-defense. we have at minimum manslaughter, because we know george zimmerman intentionally shot trayvon martin. >> in his closing argument, o'mara made this argument, it's the prosecution's job to connect the dots and not yours. >> how many what ifs have you heard from the state in this case? well i don't think they get to ask you that. i don't think they get to say to you, what do you think? no, no, no. no, no, no. what have i proven to you. what have i convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt occurred in this case so much so that you don't have any reasonable doubt, those issues that i presented to you. they are supposed to use words like certainty and definite and without question, beyond a reasonable doubt. no other explanation. >> paul henderson, is he on to something here? was the prosecution deficient insofar as they asked open ended questions without having a consistent theory of their own in their case? >> it depends on the lens that you use. i would liked to see more questions directed

was it murder, manslaughter or self-defense? after 14 days of testimony, slide shows, witnesses, theatrics, and even a little courtroom bickering, the case is in the jury's hands with three choices in front of them: second-degree murder, manslaughter or not guilty. their first decision, they decided to sleep on it. they've been back now for several hours today, and every legal expert in the land says you can never predict what a jury will do. when you take a look at these high-profile cases, you can understand. it took the jodi arias jury 15 hours to convict her in the first-degree murder of her boyfriend, travis alexander. in the casey anthony trial, it took 10-plus hours to convict her in the death of her daughter. conrad murray, it took nine hours to convict him in the death of michael jackson. and scott peterson, it took 7 days to convict him of the murder of his wife. there are just six days in the george zimmerman trial. >> her children are 11 and 13. she's a proud member of her church. her husband is an engineer. other sp

self-defense likely? reasonable doubt as self-defense. the self-defense suspected. well, we have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. may not be self-defense. you're not quite sure. not guilty. unlikely self-defense, but it might be. you have a doubt to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. less than likely is it self-defense? this was a 50/50, i wouldn't vote self-defense. this was a civil trial. highly unlikely that it's self-defense. but i have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. the state has proven to me to you beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense properly. i have no doubt a reasonable doubt that the state has convinced me he didn't act in self-defense the way he should have. then he's guilty. and only then is he guilty. so, let's talk about my burden to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt of his innocence. at the risk of confusing you, i'm going to request that you not allow me to confuse you as to the standards. but i want to show you what the evidence h

he's familiar and has studied self-defense and self-defense theories.o he would know what to say and how to craft a story. so what the judge is really evaluating now is, is that going to be more probative or prejudice? so that's what we're discussing and waiting for now. i see both sides of it, and i understand completely why a prosecutor would want to get this information in and to say that this is an individual that was fixated on law enforcement and that had more than a passing familiarity with law enforcement. and this is why we hear him talking the way that he talks and kplun kating the way he communicates, and that colors his communication about his story and how the events unfolded that night because he had exposure, knowledge, and awareness of what a self-defense story could look like, and that's why we're having this discussion. that's why they're trying to keep it out. >> patrick, interesting moment from the trial earlier today that got a lot of attention. bernie was extraordinarily animated at one point when he was trying to make a point abou

self-defense murder, the george zimmerman trial at 10:00. piers morgan starts right now. >>> this is "piers morgan live." welcome to the viewers in the united states and around the world. right now the six women deciding the fate of george zimmerman are back in the hotel and we can only imagine what is going through their minds. that he deliberated for three hours and 33 minutes. the jury will return at 9:00 a.m. to begin deliberating again for the trial that is gripping america. will they find george zimmerman guilty or not guilty of murdering trayvon martin and could they return for a manslaughter conviction or acquit him of all charges? they asked for 200 exhibits and have testimony to pour over. a fierily closing argument from the defense and an equally re t rebuttal from the prosecution. >> do we think he might have abo acted in self-defense? not convinced, not a concern, that he may just have act in self-defense? if you reach that conclusion, you get to stop. you really do. why? because self-defense is a defense to everything. >> this

is that it becomes a world of self centered pursuits.elf abc shoeshtion and the irony here is that people that are out for themselves and that they are trying hard to become happen accumulate as much status and prestige and wealth and all of the things that make you happy in life. those people turn out to be fairly miserable in life. if they are not living for greater than themselves. self abc shoeshtion is not the way to go through life. you are worry. worried that somebody will take something away from you. and you worry about everything. your life is filled with anxiety. often despair meaning lessness. and a sense of emptiness. so when we fail to convey to young people that you're living for something greater than yourself and it could be a lot of things of course, it could be your family. and it could be your friends. and also nation also ought to take a part in your concerns. that is the mission of educators is to introduce to the lives of young people. things this they can believe in and enough to did he kate themselves enough to a

>> george zimmerman knows the law on self-defense, he knows in order to get a proper self-defense charge and win this case, using self-defense, he has to allege he was reasonably in fear for his life or great bodily harm. so the prosecutors are arguing he completely embellished the amount of physical contact he had between him and trayvon martin. and the dna evidence and the forensics support that because they don't have his dna under trayvon's nails. and if you were in this life or death struggle, fight, and trayvon is repeatedly hitting you and slamming your head against the concrete, surely the forensics would support that and they don't. >> lisa, do -- in the cross, did the defense back any of this down from the dna expert? >> normally i love dna evidence because it's scientific and i'm a geek and we don't have to rely on the words of people who tend to be biased and make things up, but frankly i'm unimpressed with the dna evidence in this case because i think the defense has made good points about the collection that the -- that the remains of trayvon martin that was there in the ra

based on the fact and most importantly the law with regard to self defense.nce all of the evidence was in, these jurors would have had to convict, they would have had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense, and in the momentÑi!at george zimmerman fired that weapon, did he reasonably believe that great bodily harm or death could ensue? just what was going on in his head? not what actually happened so if those jurors had reasonable doubt about that question, then it is an acquittal and based on the fact presented in this case, i don't see how the jurors could have voted any other way. >> rose: charles ogletree what do you think of this decision by this jury? >> well, i accept the decision. i think this jury thought through the evidence very carefully and reached a verdict which is only available and that is not guilty. i disagree with dan a little bit, i think one of the problems with the case is that the pink elephant of race was throughout this trial, and no one could talk about it, i think if you look at george zimmerman's comments

steve and your ground is an extension of self-defense. it is not that anybody is attacking self-defense it in the simmering case there was logical steps he could have taken to avoid that confrontation ended becomes a matter did he feel threatened a and the jury said he did and the prosecution failed to make the case he was acting with any malice. that is the verdict. you excepted. but for the nra that is said to to pursues the guns in every corner agenda, that is laughable. lou: your reaction to the statement, steve? >> in the sense eric holder seems to pre-empted when he talks about senior ground that it is a law that did not need to be passed because you already have the right to self-defense so that is his response to the statement i am more sympathetic to the stand your ground law because they have proven effective over the years. lou: the idea that the attorney general would say he wants americans to retreat in the face a threat is bizarre. to me i cannot begin to understand why this attorney-general and president did not do the grac

self-defense murder, the george zimmerman trial at 10:00. piers morgan starts right now. >>> this is "piers morgan live." welcome to the viewers in the united states and around the world. right now the six women deciding the fate of george zimmerman are back in the hotel and we can only imagine what is going through their minds. that he deliberated for three hours and 33 minutes. the jury will return at 9:00 a.m. to begin deliberating again for the trial that is gripping america. will they find george zimmerman guilty or not guilty of murdering trayvon martin and could they return for a manslaughter conviction or acquit him of all charges? they asked for 200 exhibits and have testimony to pour over. a fierily closing argument from the defense and an equally rebuttal from the prosecution. >> do we think he might have acted in self-defense? not convinced, not a concern, that he may just have act in self-defense? if you reach that conclusion, you get to stop. you really do. why? because self-defense is a defense to everything. >> this isn't a c

if there's self defense for murder, there's self defense for manslaughter, correct? >> that's exactly right. no ill will takes out second. you say there's also no self defense. you can get to manslaughter. i think they're working all night. they're working on whether it's going to be manslaughter. i certainly don't think this means a conviction. it could mean an acquittal. >> courtney, go ahead. >> i was going to say i think that was the biggest problem with the prosecution's closing argument. they failed to articulate what facts applied to what part of the law. nobody really explained to them the law. i think that's what they're struggling with. i've gone through these jury instructions, and they're very, very simplified compared to what we have here in california. so you know, the fact that didn't, you know, respond to the judge's note doesn't surprise me. there are two elements, really. i truly believe that these ladies are thinking about how could george zimmerman not be responsible somehow, somehow for the death of trayvon martin. >> have you ever seen a jury of

and it's not a case about self-defense. it's a case about self-denial. george zimmerman's. the common sense that tells you that if he was the neighborhood watch coordinator, not anyone, the coordinator, who had lived there for four years, he would know the name of twin trees lane. the common sense that tells you if he was so afraid of the real suspicious guy with his hand in his waistband, he would have never got out of the car. but that's not what happened. the common sense that tells you, if he really was soft, didn't know how to fight, in his own words, he wouldn't have been able to get wrist control of trayvon martin. those were his words. he wouldn't have been able to move his hand off his mouth. or off his gun. if trayvon martin was putting on such a blow, that little plastic, flimsy, kid's watch on his wrist, it wouldn't have come off. it didn't. the common sense that tells you, if trayvon martin was the one on the hunt, would he still have been on his cell phone? with ear buds still have been in his ears if he was getting ready to attack somebody? really? and the mo

just go with the self-defense and if you find self-defense was acted upon, that absolvings george zimmerman of second degree murder andles of manslaughter. >> talk about a dramatic pause. during their closing the defense also used four minutes of complete silence. what was that about? >> three hours and five minutes of the closing argument and four minute office absolute silence. everybody in the courtroom looking at each other, looking ahead. pretty effective according to the courtroom observers. the jurors and he spectators all thought so. after trayvon martin left that seven that night he walked back to zimmerman's gated community and that's where zimmerman spotted him, saw him as suspicious and called police. mark o'mara bailed the beginning of the four-minute gap from when zimmerman said to the cop, he is running and then the fatal gunshot, raising the question for the jurors-where was martin during the four minutes and what was he doing? >> the person that decided this was going to continue, there was going to become violent, was the guy who didn't go home when he had the chance to th

if they believe it was self-defense for murder 2, it's self-defense for manslaughter. >> do you thinkt was because you heard mark o'mara in the end when they brought in manslaughter. he was incredulous. he said i can't believe this. do you think that was a strategy so they wouldn't go over this and is this part of a grander scheme by the prosecution? >> no. that was sort of surprising to me that the defense was sort of acting like it was so shocking that the prosecution would be asking for this lesser included. it's always asked for it. it is actually a mandatory lesser included. so with the prosecution asking for it the defense was -- the judge was going to instruct the jury and i would agree with mark i was a bit surprised that the defense went into closing all or nothing. they argued second-degree murder and self-defense but they didn't really argue manslaughter. did they think their argument wasn't a strong argument for manslaughter? i'm not sure. they really needed to do that. again, many people were saying, i have always said i thought there was enough evidence for second-degree

it's really about self-defense.t's why the theme of the prosecution's closing argument, which i wish john guy gave the opening and closing the whole time, by the way, but this is not a stand your ground case. this is a stay in your car case. he was very compelling in making that point and really bringing it home at the end there. >> paul, what about this question of what we were talking about before, whether it's not guilty and whether the prosecution should retry? i mean, what would you advise the state to do if that were to happen? >> well, a lot of it goes into not just polling the jury but trying to figure out what their questions were. a lot of times they're going to come out two or three times with questions because they're unsure. what does this exact word mean? what does this jury instruction mean? and being able to glean from that the direction they're going in, it really is -- there's an art to it where you're trying to figure all of this stuff out. all of that goes into the decision you make at the end if

but also they had an economic self-interest. they already owned slaves and the environment in the u.s. is such that slave mortality was not a site in southern plantations as it was in places like google or brazil where slaves didn't live for very long because of the environment and the diseases. here in the u.s. if they were well treated, as well treated as they could be, they would live for a decent lifespan. and so slave owners proceed it would increase the bite of the sites they already own because it would limit the influx of slaves and the ability of their neighbors to buy new slave. so it was an odd coalition. >> host: you have a chart in your book. it shows, and i want to use the word importation of slaves, correct? what is the showing? >> guest: there's a real strong spike the number of slaves entering the u.s. right before we ban it because everyone knew that as soon as the clock turned in 1808 that congress was going to ban slate trade. >> host: the other half of your book is about the international human rights law. w

self-defense to murder, self-defense to manslaughter, self-defense to battery.t happened out there was not a crime. so in that context, there shouldn't be a second degree murder charge or any lessers. in addition, i don't believe factually a manslaughter charge will be presented. what george did, intentional act, even as he was pulling the trigger, the reason why was self-defense that doesn't suggest a manslaughter charge would be appropriate. >> let's see what our panel says. mark o'mara, press conference after court today. he says his client really wanted to testify. it's baloney. i don't buy that. that was for the benefit of the media. no way in the world this lawyer wanted his client to testify or george himself did. what do you think? >> i have to agree with you. sfwlimerman would have to be stuck on stupid to get anywhere near the stand. the fact about it, he has testified at least on four different occasions, and are you going to hear in closing arguments, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he testified, gave testimony to the police when he didn't even hav

with the self-reliance but i don't know individual self reliance i think we need to take government out of the picture but i also say we need to take multinational corporations out of the picture also because there's no real free market in this in this country you have you have basically you know private property private profits but subsidize risk and we don't talk about that we talk about free markets but what i want to do is take the long term it took hundreds of years for us to build up to the power dynamics that we have today and what i want to do is unwind all of those that we don't rely on government so we don't rely on corporations to do all these things and we start to build and. exercise power from below and there's localized economies built solidarity mutual aid where people set up relying on governments for handouts that they start to work on food security themselves create community gardens create victory gardens create community supported agriculture these small scale things creating our own health care if there's a nationalized health care fine but we need to localize heal