JURY from page B1his lawful right, to protect his life.40 minutes and every opportuni ty to justify his actions, Elmore said “He didn't. You heard him Lie, lie. lie. lie, lie.’’During the interview Gafford claimed only that “I didn’t cut no-body and I don’t remember cutting nobody' ”Miller’s argument in Gafford’s defense began with the statement, On June 1, 2005, troublecame looking for Mr Johnnv B. Gafford.He told jurors that Gafford had spent the day of the attacks lounging at his house and drink ing beer with friends Zetterlund and Ciastko had come to his home three times, the third time seeking a confrontation.They put him in a positionwhere he liad two choices, Miller argued. He exercised his nght,his property and others To buy the prosecution’s case. Miller said, the jury would have to buy the testimony of Zetterlund, the first person Elmore put on the witness standZetterlund was “a drunk, angry man that day, infuriatedwhen his girlfriend Barbara McDonald, refused to leave Gafford’s home, Miller said.“We know he was so out of it when he came by Mr. Gafford s house he walked nght by Bar bara,” Miller said The state’s trying to tell you he knows what he’s talking about on the witness stand.Miller argued that a 911 tape taken at the scene clearly reveals that Gafford, McDonald and others were being assaulted insideGafford’s home.Gafford “met force with force in a matter that made his actions legal under justifiable homicide statutes. Miller said.Elmore contended that all the tape offers is Gafford’s admission of guilt when he said I got one in the heart and one in the neck.Gafford’s actions were premeditated and far exceeded the intent of the justifiable homicide law, said Elmore.The law doesn’t say if some jerk comes over to your house and cuts your tires and carries on about his girlfriend that you can go out and cut his throat, he said.Daily Newt Staff WriterTom McLaughlin can ba raachad at863-1111, E*t. 435.