Judging from the closing argument of Steele’s lead attorney, Tom Hanlon, the defense has conceded Steele’s guilt.

But what is he guilty of? Jurors will begin deliberating just that later this afternoon.

Prosecutors argue that Steele planned to shoot a law officer that night and, therefore, should be found guilty of premeditated murder. That would make him eligible for the death penalty. Hanlon disputed that notion in his hourlong closing, given late this morning. Hanlon reduced Steele’s actions to “a 19-year-old drunk kid doing something stupid.”

“Was he doing something stupid? Yes. Was he doing something illegal? Yes. But was it first-degree murder? No.”

The state has staked its case on several incriminating statements Steele made shortly after Harrison’s slaying on June 1, 2003. Hanlon told jurors that if they were going to believe Steele’s words, they would have to believe all of them. That includes Steele’s contention that he didn’t mean to hurt anybody and only fired at the patrol car to scare.

That statement alone proves that Steele didn’t premeditate the killing, Hanlon said. Sure, he fired his SKS rifle in the Withlacoochee State Forest hours before Harrison’s death. But that doesn’t prove anything, because Steele had no way of knowing a deputy would be parked nearby four hours later, Hanlon said.

State Attorney Bernie McCabe finished off the state’s case, telling jurors that Steele’s contention that he didn’t mean to hurt anyone was his way of mitigating his own confession. Steele had no choice but to tell investigators he had shot at Harrison’s car because he had admitted it to his cousin two days earlier, McCabe said.

“We’ve known from the beginning of the case that the defendant has a presumption of innocence,” McCabe said. “In some places, it’s called a cloak of innocence. But if it is a cloak, it’s completely shredded at this point, and he is exposed for what he is and what he was: a cop killer.”

Get Weekly Deals | Write a letter to the editor | Subscribe and get two weeks free | Place an Ad