Did Nathaniel Brazill kill his seventh-grade teacher in cold blood? Or did he only intend to scare Barry Grunow, firing the gun accidentally? Lawyers argued both scenarios adamantly Friday during their closing arguments, at times acting out the shooting for the jury.

Returning to a metaphor that he employed throughout the two-week trial, prosecutor Marc Shiner repeatedly referred to "a storm brewing" inside Brazill to explain how the well-liked boy could kill Grunow. Shiner argued that, though the boy's motive for killing his teacher was unclear, evidence showed that the shooting was premeditated.

"Was he trying to kill [his friend] Dinora? Was he trying to kill [guidance counselor] Mr. Hinds? Was he trying to kill Mr. Grunow?" the prosecutor asked. "Was he mad because he got suspended? Was he mad because the girls didn't go out with him? Will we ever know? Does it really matter?"

Later Shiner stressed that Brazill pointed his gun at Grunow for 11 seconds before shooting him, enough time to form the intent to kill, said the lawyer.

"That's a long time. One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand, four one thousand," the prosecutor intoned, dramatically training the gun at the courtroom wall. "Nine one thousand, ten one thousand, eleven one thousand, click."

Defense lawyer Robert Udell addressed the jury for more than three hours, constantly strolling around the courtroom and gesticulating. He said that the facts surrounding the killing didn't add up to an intentional murder.

"All of a sudden this young man and for no reason decides to commit the most heinous crime we know against his most famous teacher?" he inquired incredulously. "You believe that? That happens on TV, not in real life. People don't all of a sudden become cold-blooded killers. It doesn't happen."

The lawyer also argued over and over again that the prosecution had not met its burden of proving Brazill guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

"That's not imaginary, that's not speculative, that's not forced," he said. "We didn't tell you the glove doesn't fit. We didn't tell you they planted any bloody gloves. What we're telling you is that there's a reasonable doubt."

A successful student with no history of discipline problems, Brazill was suspended and sent home early on May 26, 2000, the last day of classes for Lake Worth Community Middle School. He returned to school with a gun, knocked on Grunow's classroom door and demanded to see two friends to say goodbye for the summer. When the teacher would not let the girls out of class early, Brazill drew the gun and shot him.

Brazill is charged with first-degree murder for shooting Grunow and aggravated assault for pointing the gun at another teacher during his escape.

Brazill took the stand last week and testified that he pulled the trigger but did not mean to do so. During his closing argument, Shiner claimed that was impossible.

"You can't pull the trigger unintentionally. You can't pull the trigger unless you try to pull the trigger," he said.

But Udell disputed this in his remarks, reminding the jury of the testimony of firearms expert Lama Martin, who said on the stand that the gun Brazill used was notorious for unintentional firings because of the light amount of force needed to depress its trigger.

The prosecutor also called Brazill's credibility into issue, asking the jury how the boy's statements concerning the case could contradict those of several other students.

"He has a selective memory and he wants you to hear only what he wants you to hear. He doesn't want you to find out the truth," said Shiner. "He wants to keep his mind hidden and doesn't want you to realize the anger and hatred he had at that moment — the moment of truth."

Udell maintained that his client told only the truth, and pointed out that the boy could have chosen not to take the stand. "He had the guts to look you in the eye and tell you, 'Its just not true. I'm not demented. I'm not a cold-blooded killer. I didn't intend to harm my favorite teacher,'" said the lawyer.

Udell said many times that to truly understand the boy who took the stand, it was necessary to think about his age.

"Keep in mind that he was 13. What we're judging here is Nathaniel's state of mind. That's what we've been litigating from day one," he said.

But wary that jurors might be lenient because Brazill was 13-years-old at the time of the killing, the prosecutor repeatedly stressed that the panel must treat the boy as an adult.

"The proper place for a debate belongs with your legislatures. The courtroom is not the place to say 'We know he did it, we know he's guilty, but he's so young,'" said the prosecutor.

Shiner and Udell both spent time explaining some of the instructions that Circuit Court Judge Richard Wennet would later give. Both lawyers paid special attention to what some observers have referred to as the prosecutor's ace in the hole — felony murder.

Juries in Florida can convict defendants of unpremeditated first-degree murder if they decide that a homicide was committed during the commission of another felony — in Brazill's case, burglary.

During the trial, Udell tried to convince Wennet to acquit his client of felony murder, arguing that the school was open to the public and that Brazill could not have burgled it by returning. But Wennet dismissed the motion, ruling that the boy did not have permission to return to the school.

Udell stressed to the jury that to be guilty of felony murder, Brazill had to have the intent to assault somebody when he broke into the school.

"There's only one truth here. Either Nathaniel went to school with the intent to kill or assault or he didn't. We submit to you that since the state has the burden of proving beyond every reasonable doubt, did they prove to you that Nathaniel went to school with the intent of killing or assaulting?"

Generally under Florida law, premeditated murder and felony murder are not listed separately but are merely two ways to reach a first-degree murder conviction. But Shiner agreed over the weekend to treat them as separate charges because of concerns about appellate issues.

Though Brazill is charged with first degree-murder, the jury can convict him of several lesser charges, including second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter.

"You start at second-degree murder. They just didn't prove first-degree murder by either way beyond a reasonable doubt," Udell implored the jury at the end of his argument. "He wasn't thinking. He certainly didn't think this thing through. For two minutes of his life he stopped thinking. We're telling you he was guilty of a crime and he needs to pay for it. But what crime is it? Please make a legal decision. Please make a wise one too. Punish Nathaniel, but do not crush him. The punishment is manslaughter."

Shiner, however, stressed justice over empathy. "He's guilty of two counts of first-degree murder. He needs to be held accountable and responsible and only you can do that. We're asking you to do that because that's the truth," the truth.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Brazill will automatically be given life in prison without parole. Second-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of life behind bars, though Judge Wennet will have discretion. If convicted of third-degree murder or manslaughter, the boy could serve no more than 30 years.

Judge Wennet finished instructing the jury at 5:15 p.m. ET.