Francis Di Domizio wrote:Because it means they were not thinking he acted in self defense, but didn't find enough evidence to prove guilt on either charge. There's no logical reason to consider manslaughter if you think the defendant was trying to protect him own life. Since they asked questions about manslaughter, one would have to assume they were considering it. As you stated, we won't really know unless one of the jurists speaks.
But self-defense was a legal defense on every charge against Zimmerman, so the jury certainly could have acquitted him on manslaughter charges based on self-defense also.