[slumber1]

I hope they aren’t thinking of something they saw on a TV show and can’t separate fact from a Hollywood script.

That's entirely possible since unlike most men, very few women have ever been in a fistfight. Since they don't have experience as a guide they will rely on something else to make the decision. The fact that they are even asking about manslaughter is not good. It could mean they have rejected the self defense argument. If you find that someone acted in self defense you cannot then find him guilty of manslaughter. A positive finding of self defense trumps everything.

[null and void]

If you find that someone acted in self defense you cannot then find him guilty of manslaughter. A positive finding of self defense trumps everything.

Her honor specifically DID NOT mention that little factoid in her instructions to the jury.

All they know is:

The judge’s instructions to the jury:

“MANSLAUGHTER To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. Trayvon Martin is dead. 2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.”

They don't even know the penalty is nearly as harsh, that minor detail has also been deliberately withheld from them.

[ConservativeStatement]

One of the talking heads on FOX said it could be a “good thing” there are no men on the jury because a man would try to take over and become the head of the jury. With all women, everyone is an equal and women are more detail-oriented than men.