The judge just sent back a note telling them that they needed to ask a specific question, and they never did. They just said "fuck it" and rendered a verdict.

Assholes. I hope they never sleep well again in their lives.

Very hard to believe that with everything that was on the line. It just seems that the jury was ready to get things over with and didn't want to be bothered any more. Very disheartening.

than this travesty.

I know that a hung jury would have required the entire case to be retried, but Trayvon's family deserved better than what they got.

Initially, the jury asked the judge to provide instructions for the manslaughter charge. The judge consulted with defense and prosecution, who determined that the question must be more specific. The judge wrote a note back to the jury that they must ask again and be more specific.

The follow-up question never happened. So the idea that they never fully understood the manslaughter charge is a possibility.

I was at work and following the deliberations online, but I did not know that the judge ruled they had to ask again and be more specific.

a note requesting a more specific question. The jury didn't respond to the note but returned with
an acquittal.

The instructions to the jury were pretty specific as to manslaughter, you can read the instructions here:

Webbrowser version:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

Direct link to .pdf version:
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf )

about manslaughter. Could be mistaken.

and manslaughter. It was not really explained, and the almost all white jury voted as we should have expected in Florida. Not one of them had the guts to hold out for a few days in favor of an innocent kid clearly murdered as a result of Zman actions.

Clarify what? Which point are they confused on? Did they want examples? Or did they want to know if "intent" is involved, even if not stated? Or could they consider defending himself using TOO much force? Exactly what did they want clarification on? It was too general a question. She asked them to be more specific as to WHAT part of the charge they wanted clarification on.

Then they came in with the not guilty verdict, so I guess they decided the answer among themselves.

It's a mystery. And it surprised everyone.

If I had to guess, I would guess that one juror said that the charge meant something in particular about one particular part of the charge, and the others disagreed. So the jurors wanted clarification on that point. When teh judge didn't answer outright, they went ahead with their deliberations...they really knew the answer, anyway. That would be my guess. OR while the judge was considering their question, they cont'd deliberations and got past the manslaughter charge, anyway.

It's a mystery.

To anyone who at all looked at it impartially

Sometimes when you stop and think about a more specific question you end up figuring out the answer to what you asked in the first place.

A short time passing between having the question and having a verdict could also mean that most of the jury was ready to acquit and that one or two of the jurors still weren't sure.