Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman Discussion Thread...

[Drgoo0285]

Not only did he call 911, in where they gave him the advice to stand down, but he leaves his car with a gun.

he has a carry permit, so this makes absolutely sense. Zimmerman certainly made some poor decisions, but it's not so much about "he had the gun he carries with him."

[/quote]

Just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean you aren't liable for any of the actions you take.

much like we have the "right to free speech" but we can't "shout fire in a crowded movie theater" It's not because we can't actually shout "fire" at random times but we should know the chaos/damage that could cause.

It could be argued that Zimmerman should have known that running after a person in the rain at night with a gun that had a bullet in the chamber could lead to a life or death situation.. Thus a depraved mind.

 

[Ghostdenithegawd]

"The Trayvon Martin murder case has been anything but an open and shut case but might have just received its most definitive evidence yet. According to Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA expert Anthony Gorgone, Trayvon’s DNA was not found on the grip of the murder weapon nor was George Zimmerman’s DNA found under Martin’s fingernails.

As an attempt to counter, the defense attorney Don West questioned Gorgone on the packaging of the DNA samples, implying that improper packaging could lead to inaccurate results. Gorgone asserted that the evidence was packaged in plastic while wet and retained all necessary qualities.

In addition to this damning evidence, Florida Department of Law Enforcement analyst Amy Siewert testified that due to residual material and tearing on Martin’s clothes, it revealed that the gun was pressed against Trayvon when fired."

 

[janklow]

Just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean you aren't liable for any of the actions you take.

i think you're missing the point entirely.

if the man has a legal carry permit, it's logical that he's, you know, going to carry a gun. you're talking about him carrying as if THAT specifically proves he's got a depraved mind; yet you're talking about something that not only is he completely justified in doing under the law, but also, that thousands (if not millions) of people are doing without the need for all the related stuff. it's not, in and of itself, "proof of a depraved mind."

now, again, this is not to say Zimmerman didn't make mistakes or isn't liable for his actions. but saying the mere fact he had his gun with him is not some extra level of depravity if he's doing it legally.

 

[cobbland]

Zimmerman should experience what thousands (of documented) black men faced when they received punishments not consistent with the crime they were charged with (even if/when some of them turned out to actually be innocent).

It's only fair, right?

nope. if you want to fix the legal system (and i thought we all did), then we need to fix it, not just start saying we need payback.

Not only did he call 911, in where they gave him the advice to stand down, but he leaves his car with a gun.

he has a carry permit, so this makes absolutely sense. Zimmerman certainly made some poor decisions, but it's not so much about "he had the gun he carries with him."

There's hundreds of years of research that points out these problems, yet they still exist.

Unfortunately, the privileged classes must experience these hardships in order for change to occur. Otherwise, lip-service will continue to be given to these issues.

 

[Plutarch]

I agree with Maximus Rex. I think that it's unlikely that Zimmerman set out to intentionally "murder" Martin. Even if Zimmerman did, I would think that it would be very difficult to prove, and evidence doesn’t suggest that he did. I agree with a manslaughter conviction. It was his stupidity, poor judgment, negligence, and incompetence at fighting that led to the actual killing. Regardless, I think that he should be and would have been forced to answer to a manslaughter charge, but something tells me that that wouldn’t appease the lynch mob. Well, now it seems that he’ll surely get off with a slap on the wrist. We shouldn’t bite off more than we can chew?

There's hundreds of years of research that points out these problems, yet they still exist.

Imo, some of these problems exist. There has been some progress, and we shouldn’t ignore that. If I’m not mistaken, charges for crack possession, which usually affects the lower classes since crack is cheap, is no longer more severe than cocaine possession, which usually affect the higher classes since cocaine is more expensive. There has been other progress too. It just takes time and effort, and that requires patience and activism. Unfortunately, not too many people (including me at times) are patient and active.

Unfortunately, the privileged classes must experience these hardships in order for change to occur. Otherwise, lip-service will continue to be given to these issues.

Imo, the privileged classes are the upper classes and the elite. The upper classes and the elite don’t experience these hardships. They have the money, the attorneys, the power, the connections, etc. to get by most of the time. Change is not going to happen because of them. The status quo happens because of them.

I don’t think that Zimmerman is so privileged as to make even the slightest difference. People like him get the book thrown at them all the time. The case is only high-profile because of the drama. Zimmerman’s certainly no O.J. Simpson. Btw, I’m sure that you know that O.J Simpson is black, so I don’t necessarily agree that race has so much to do with this. People always see race, but if they step back, they’ll see that class is the bigger root of the problem. And I also don’t agree with the idea that black people suffer injustice, so “white” people should suffer injustice as well because it’s only right. I never understand how so many people believe that two wrongs make a right.

 

[janklow]

There's hundreds of years of research that points out these problems, yet they still exist.

research is not us actually taking action to resolve these problems. and frankly, continued misapplication of the law doesn't cause appropriate change to occur, it causes the continued belief that the law should be abused as the abuser sees fit.

 

[Drgoo0285]

I agree with Maximus Rex. I think that it's unlikely that Zimmerman set out to intentionally "murder" Martin. Even if Zimmerman did, I would think that it would be very difficult to prove, and evidence doesn’t suggest that he did. I agree with a manslaughter conviction. It was his stupidity, poor judgment, negligence, and incompetence at fighting that led to the actual killing. Regardless, I think that he should be and would have been forced to answer to a manslaughter charge, but something tells me that that wouldn’t appease the lynch mob. Well, now it seems that he’ll surely get off with a slap on the wrist. We shouldn’t bite off more than we can chew?

actually the difference between murder and manslaughter is huge.

Basically if you reasonably do not know your actions will lead to someone dying. I.e. if we get into a fight and I punch you, and your head bounces off a wall, and you die. That is manslaughter.

But if at any point I should expect there to be a death. I.e we get into fight, I pull a gun out and shoot you, and kill you, then it is 2nd degree murder.

was there at anytime between the time of GZ following trayvon, to the time of him shooting TM that he should reasonably believe that TM could have died? If so then it's 2nd degree murder.

 

[desertrain10]

This whole Trayvon Martin thing has eerie similarities to the Rodney King incident.

In both instances, the defendants were demonized by the media from the get-go.

Not all information was preIf sented by the media.

The coverage was way too biased.

The defendants were most likely justified.

Would the Rodney King incident have grown as big as it did if the public had known that Rodney King was going 120mph in a residential neighborhood, and then physically assaulted the officers who were trying to detain him? The beating was hardly unjustified.

Would the public have been as quick to judge George Zimmerman had they known that the Sanford Police had done all that they could've done to trip him up? Had they been outraged if they knew the lead investigator actually did want to charge him with manslaughter but was simply unable to due to lack of evidence? Would they have been quick to judge him had the media not erroneously said he was a 300 pound white male, and had the media not erroneously presented Trayvon as a tiny little pre-teen who did absolutely nothing to cause his own death?

In both instances, the media completely demolished the defendant's credibility before they even had a chance to tell their sides. Completely shameful, and now its all coming out. Zimmerman was most likely innocent, the evidence proves it and there is no evidence to suggest that he had a depraved mind or malice or that he wasn't acting in self defense. Manslaughter is a stretch as well.

We all know Zimmerman should've been acquitted yesterday, unfortunately its also obvious that because of the media's instigation, he would not have been acquitted. The evidence was there for an acquittal, but I doubt any judge would've wanted to be responsible for the ensuing riots.

Lol

He killed a 17 yr man he was stalking, at night....the man should have to defend his actions before a jury especially considering none of the physical evidence suggest gz was on the losing end of this vicious assault

 

[Drgoo0285]

Just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean you aren't liable for any of the actions you take.

i think you're missing the point entirely.

if the man has a legal carry permit, it's logical that he's, you know, going to carry a gun. you're talking about him carrying as if THAT specifically proves he's got a depraved mind; yet you're talking about something that not only is he completely justified in doing under the law, but also, that thousands (if not millions) of people are doing without the need for all the related stuff. it's not, in and of itself, "proof of a depraved mind."

now, again, this is not to say Zimmerman didn't make mistakes or isn't liable for his actions. but saying the mere fact he had his gun with him is not some extra level of depravity if he's doing it legally.

the guns purpose proves a

Just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean you aren't liable for any of the actions you take.

i think you're missing the point entirely.

if the man has a legal carry permit, it's logical that he's, you know, going to carry a gun. you're talking about him carrying as if THAT specifically proves he's got a depraved mind; yet you're talking about something that not only is he completely justified in doing under the law, but also, that thousands (if not millions) of people are doing without the need for all the related stuff. it's not, in and of itself, "proof of a depraved mind."

now, again, this is not to say Zimmerman didn't make mistakes or isn't liable for his actions. but saying the mere fact he had his gun with him is not some extra level of depravity if he's doing it legally.

The issue is not with if he had the legal right to carry a gun, but with the fact he acted with a gun.

Guns are killing weapons. Since he decided to act with with a killing weapon it can be determined that he was at one time consciously trying to kill Trayvon. The real question is if it was self defense. If not then it's murder, not manslaughter.

 

[Plutarch]

I agree with Maximus Rex. I think that it's unlikely that Zimmerman set out to intentionally "murder" Martin. Even if Zimmerman did, I would think that it would be very difficult to prove, and evidence doesn’t suggest that he did. I agree with a manslaughter conviction. It was his stupidity, poor judgment, negligence, and incompetence at fighting that led to the actual killing. Regardless, I think that he should be and would have been forced to answer to a manslaughter charge, but something tells me that that wouldn’t appease the lynch mob. Well, now it seems that he’ll surely get off with a slap on the wrist. We shouldn’t bite off more than we can chew?

actually the difference between murder and manslaughter is huge.

Basically if you reasonably do not know your actions will lead to someone dying. I.e. if we get into a fight and I punch you, and your head bounces off a wall, and you die. That is manslaughter.

But if at any point I should expect there to be a death. I.e we get into fight, I pull a gun out and shoot you, and kill you, then it is 2nd degree murder.

was there at anytime between the time of GZ following trayvon, to the time of him shooting TM that he should reasonably believe that TM could have died? If so then it's 2nd degree murder.

I looked some of that up, and you certainly seem to bring up a good point. I could see a second degree murder charge being justified. Though that brings up other questions like the big one you already pointed out - did Zimmerman think that his life was in danger and that he had to defend himself (although in a rather excessive way)? Was self-defense justifiable here? Was the killing a crime of passion and thus not premeditated even though there was intent to kill or defend?

Regardless, I still find it unlikely that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin after he left his car. If he intended to kill Martin at all, then I would think that it was during the physical altercation, and that might be what the prosecution ultimately needs to prove in order to successfully convict him. And I still think that that's an uphill battle. I might respect the prosecution for sticking with what they believe Zimmerman should be charged with and not settling for a lesser charge, but exactly what, if any, definitive evidence do they have to see justice get served? The case has to be proven without a reasonable doubt. And it's a damn tough case.

 

[Drgoo0285]

I agree with Maximus Rex. I think that it's unlikely that Zimmerman set out to intentionally "murder" Martin. Even if Zimmerman did, I would think that it would be very difficult to prove, and evidence doesn’t suggest that he did. I agree with a manslaughter conviction. It was his stupidity, poor judgment, negligence, and incompetence at fighting that led to the actual killing. Regardless, I think that he should be and would have been forced to answer to a manslaughter charge, but something tells me that that wouldn’t appease the lynch mob. Well, now it seems that he’ll surely get off with a slap on the wrist. We shouldn’t bite off more than we can chew?

actually the difference between murder and manslaughter is huge.

Basically if you reasonably do not know your actions will lead to someone dying. I.e. if we get into a fight and I punch you, and your head bounces off a wall, and you die. That is manslaughter.

But if at any point I should expect there to be a death. I.e we get into fight, I pull a gun out and shoot you, and kill you, then it is 2nd degree murder.

was there at anytime between the time of GZ following trayvon, to the time of him shooting TM that he should reasonably believe that TM could have died? If so then it's 2nd degree murder.

I looked some of that up, and you certainly seem to bring up a good point. I could see a second degree murder charge being justified. Though that brings up other questions like the big one you already pointed out - did Zimmerman think that his life was in danger and that he had to defend himself (although in a rather excessive way)? Was self-defense justifiable here? Was the killing a crime of passion and thus not premeditated even though there was intent to kill or defend?

Regardless, I still find it unlikely that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin after he left his car. If he intended to kill Martin at all, then I would think that it was during the physical altercation, and that might be what the prosecution ultimately needs to prove in order to successfully convict him. And I still think that that's an uphill battle. I might respect the prosecution for sticking with what they believe Zimmerman should be charged with and not settling for a lesser charge, but exactly what, if any, definitive evidence do they have to see justice get served? The case has to be proven without a reasonable doubt. And it's a damn tough case.

I think the prosecution did a pretty good job in making all the doubt hinge on the word of Zimmerman who has been proven to be a habitual lire.

logically who is going to "start" an altercation? A boy that went to buy skittles and was talking to some girl on the phone, or a wanna be cop who was strapped, and on "patrol"? The only doubt is because Zimmerman states otherwise.

There is no proof that Trayvon caused any life threatening injuries... The only doubt is Zimmerman's word.

All of the almost all evidence shows that Zimmerman stalked and initiated a conflict, and when he started loosing the upper hand,(rather fast) he took his gun out and shot him.

The only doubt is that Zimmerman said differently.

 

[janklow]

the guns purpose proves...

not really sure what you were going to say there, but i'll just answer the same way i probably would: "nope."

you're thinking of the gun as if having it at all means he went out with ill intent. this, however, is not something established by merely caring a gun LEGALLY in a state that seriously recognizes your right to carry a gun and use it for self-defense. if he wasn't legally carrying the gun? i would see your point. but as it stands, no.

Guns are killing weapons. Since he decided to act with with a killing weapon-

the only thing you're saying to me right now is that you, personally, have an issue/complex/whatever with guns, and it's coming out through your stubborn refusal to acknowledge ANY reason to have the gun other than murder murder murder.

"it can be determined that he was at one time consciously trying to kill Trayvon?" please. the man carried a firearm in a state where he's allowed to do that on the grounds that You Never Know What Might Happen. again, this is the problem: instead of focusing on "why did he go looking for Trayvon," you're focusing on "OMG A GUN!"

fun fact: you can kill someone with a lot of items you're probably not identifying as "killing weapons." if he'd chased after Trayvon and wound up killing him with a flashlight, does he get a pass in your book because there was no GUN involved?

logically who is going to "start" an altercation? A boy that went to buy skittles and was talking to some girl on the phone, or a wanna be cop who was strapped, and on "patrol"? The only doubt is because Zimmerman states otherwise.

we've talked it out in this thread, but it seems like a teenager who thought someone was following him and a man who thought he was following a criminal (just to take him at his claim) could have BOTH started an altercation.

 

[Drgoo0285]

Guns are killing weapons. Since he decided to act with with a killing weapon-

the only thing you're saying to me right now is that you, personally, have an issue/complex/whatever with guns, and it's coming out through your stubborn refusal to acknowledge ANY reason to have the gun other than murder murder murder.

"it can be determined that he was at one time consciously trying to kill Trayvon?" please. the man carried a firearm in a state where he's allowed to do that on the grounds that You Never Know What Might Happen. again, this is the problem: instead of focusing on "why did he go looking for Trayvon," you're focusing on "OMG A GUN!"

fun fact: you can kill someone with a lot of items you're probably not identifying as "killing weapons." if he'd chased after Trayvon and wound up killing him with a flashlight, does he get a pass in your book because there was no GUN involved?

[/quote]

If a flash light killed Trayvon it could be manslaughter, depending on how it was used.

YOU are missing the point...

If Trayvon is killed by things that normally don't kill people then it's manslaghter...

If Trayvon is killed by things that normally do kill people then it's murder 2...

 

[janklow]

If a flash light killed Trayvon it could be manslaughter, depending on how it was used.

YOU are missing the point...

If Trayvon is killed by things that normally don't kill people then it's manslaghter...

If Trayvon is killed by things that normally do kill people then it's murder 2...

you're still missing the point, because that's not the distinction between manslaughter and murder. if Zimmerman had picked up a kitchen knife, rushed out the door after Trayvon, and intentionally stabbed him to death, we wouldn't be saying, "no, no, that's for cutting food primarily. it's totally manslaughter."

again, you've got a complex with firearms and that's why it matters more to you that A GUN was there than whether or not he went out with the intent to kill someone.

 

[DrGo0]

If a flash light killed Trayvon it could be manslaughter, depending on how it was used.

YOU are missing the point...

If Trayvon is killed by things that normally don't kill people then it's manslaghter...

If Trayvon is killed by things that normally do kill people then it's murder 2...

you're still missing the point, because that's not the distinction between manslaughter and murder. if Zimmerman had picked up a kitchen knife, rushed out the door after Trayvon, and intentionally stabbed him to death, we wouldn't be saying, "no, no, that's for cutting food primarily. it's totally manslaughter."

again, you've got a complex with firearms and that's why it matters more to you that A GUN was there than whether or not he went out with the intent to kill someone.

You are still missing the point, a gun proves intent, much like the law makes a distinction between having drugs for personal use vs selling, by how much you have.

Manslaughter is the killing of another by intentional act (not intentionally killing the other person, but intentionally committing the act which results in another’s death) or by culpable negligence.

While Zimmerman did show culpable negligence, it's not what killed Trayvon Martin...

Him deliberately using a killing machine proves that at one point he was not just trying to hurt Trayvon, question him, scare him, or even trying to cripple him. He was intentionally trying to kill him.

To say other wise would mean that shooting someone at close range is not an attempt to kill someone...

the question is if Zimmerman was justified in trying to kill him

 

[DrGo0]

also to drive my point home

from
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

Examples: Eddy Hothead gets into a drunken argument in a saloon with his acquaintance Bob Bonehead, and Hothead hits Bonehead over the head with a beer bottle, causing internal bleeding and death. Brent Burgle sneaks into a warehouse intent on theft and is surprised by a security man, whom Burgle knocks down a flight of stairs, killing him. Both are voluntary manslaughter. However, if either man had used a gun, a murder charge is most likely since he brought a deadly weapon to use in the crime.

 

[Plutarch]

You are still missing the point, a gun proves intent, much like the law makes a distinction between having drugs for personal use vs selling, by how much you have.

Manslaughter is the killing of another by intentional act (not intentionally killing the other person, but intentionally committing the act which results in another’s death) or by culpable negligence.

While Zimmerman did show culpable negligence, it's not what killed Trayvon Martin...

Him deliberately using a killing machine proves that at one point he was not just trying to hurt Trayvon, question him, scare him, or even trying to cripple him. He was intentionally trying to kill him.

To say other wise would mean that shooting someone at close range is not an attempt to kill someone...

the question is if Zimmerman was justified in trying to kill him

I don’t know if it’s your apparent bias, your apparent oversimplification, or what, but I can’t agree with a lot of what you’ve been saying.

Firstly, referring to a gun as a “killing machine” and making a distinction between things that “normally” kill people as weapons of murder by legal definition and things that “normally” don’t kill people as weapons of manslaughter by legal definition is not entirely accurate. Also, guns do have other uses besides killing people, and guns can be used to shoot people but not kill them, even at close-range.

Yes, a gun did kill Zimmerman, but forgive me for my ignorance when I ask this, but has it already been established that anything other than a clear intent to kill was the motive behind Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin? Could fear have been the primary motive? And the verdict is still out on an (excessive) act of self-defense being a primary motive. And who’s to say that Zimmerman’s negligence/stupidity wasn’t a primary factor either? To say that Zimmerman was fully conscious (during a tense, physical altercation that still remains unclear to us or at least me) of taking out his (legal) firearm and shooting Martin with the sole purpose of ending Martin’s life seems a bit premature at this point in the trial, no?

 

[Plutarch]

also to drive my point home

from
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

Examples: Eddy Hothead gets into a drunken argument in a saloon with his acquaintance Bob Bonehead, and Hothead hits Bonehead over the head with a beer bottle, causing internal bleeding and death. Brent Burgle sneaks into a warehouse intent on theft and is surprised by a security man, whom Burgle knocks down a flight of stairs, killing him. Both are voluntary manslaughter. However, if either man had used a gun, a murder charge is most likely since he brought a deadly weapon to use in the crime.

I can agree with this, but neither of those examples are comparable to Zimmerman and Martin's situation.

 

[DrGo0]

You are still missing the point, a gun proves intent, much like the law makes a distinction between having drugs for personal use vs selling, by how much you have.

Manslaughter is the killing of another by intentional act (not intentionally killing the other person, but intentionally committing the act which results in another’s death) or by culpable negligence.

While Zimmerman did show culpable negligence, it's not what killed Trayvon Martin...

Him deliberately using a killing machine proves that at one point he was not just trying to hurt Trayvon, question him, scare him, or even trying to cripple him. He was intentionally trying to kill him.

To say other wise would mean that shooting someone at close range is not an attempt to kill someone...

the question is if Zimmerman was justified in trying to kill him

I don’t know if it’s your apparent bias, your apparent oversimplification, or what, but I can’t agree with a lot of what you’ve been saying.

Firstly, referring to a gun as a “killing machine” and making a distinction between things that “normally” kill people as weapons of murder by legal definition and things that “normally” don’t kill people as weapons of manslaughter by legal definition is not entirely accurate. Also, guns do have other uses besides killing people, and guns can be used to shoot people but not kill them, even at close-range.

Yes, a gun did kill Zimmerman, but forgive me for my ignorance when I ask this, but has it already been established that anything other than a clear intent to kill was the motive behind Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin? Could fear have been the primary motive? And the verdict is still out on an (excessive) act of self-defense being a primary motive. And who’s to say that Zimmerman’s negligence/stupidity wasn’t a primary factor either? To say that Zimmerman was fully conscious (during a tense, physical altercation that still remains unclear to us or at least me) of taking out his (legal) firearm and shooting Martin with the sole purpose of ending Martin’s life seems a bit premature at this point in the trial, no?

You're confusing justification with intent.

I can intend on killing a person and be justified. If I try to kill someone trying to rape a family member, I am justified in the attempt to kill that person. Just because i am trying to stop the rape does not mean i wasn't trying to kill that person

Even in Zimmerman's recollection of the night he says that at one point he knew that "someone was going to die" that's an admission that he knew his actions would lead to Trayvon's death.

 

[janklow]

You are still missing the point, a gun proves intent-

i am not missing the point, i am declaring your point invalid.

the distinction between drugs for personal use and drugs for distribution is NOT a valid comparison at all, and simply indicates your emotional problem with guns. take a look at your provided definition of manslaughter:

"Manslaughter is the killing of another by intentional act (not intentionally killing the other person, but intentionally committing the act which results in another’s death) or by culpable negligence."

using a firearm in self-defense can easily be called manslaughter. your entire argument is, "well, there was a gun, so it's worse somehow." Plutarch is absolutely right that you calling it "a killing machine" is an absolute give-away that you have less of an argument and more of an emotional problem with guns. the ACT that resulted in Trayvon's death is chasing him down.

note that you agree a man can carry something for the express purpose of using it as a weapon and yet, if it's not as emotionally scary as A GUN, it's immediately not as bad in your book. further, if he did not chase him down to shoot him, it DOESN'T MATTER if he was carrying a gun. you're still approaching this from the perspective that since he had a gun at all, there's literally no other intent in his mind than to hunt down Trayvon and shoot him. even if this WAS the case --fuck it, maybe it was-- that's not proven merely by the fact that he had a gun.

if a man lives in Florida, can legally carry a gun, hears a noise in his yard and goes outside, and as a result, he gets attacked by an intruder and shoots him in self-defense, is THAT murder rather than manslaughter because he picked up a gun instead of a baseball bat?

Zimmerman may be 100% guilty of causing Martin's death, but that's not something based around the fact that a gun was involved. again, if he'd been carrying, say, a pocket knife, and stabbed Martin to death after Martin attacked the mysterious man following him in the dark, is that not the same thing as what happened, simply minus the gun? don't start talking about "justification" and "intent" if you're so hung up on this gun thing because the gun itself does not prove intent. ask yourself how often Zimmerman carried that gun and DIDN'T shoot someone.

Examples: Eddy Hothead gets into a drunken argument in a saloon with his acquaintance Bob Bonehead, and Hothead hits Bonehead over the head with a beer bottle, causing internal bleeding and death. Brent Burgle sneaks into a warehouse intent on theft and is surprised by a security man, whom Burgle knocks down a flight of stairs, killing him. Both are voluntary manslaughter. However, if either man had used a gun, a murder charge is most likely since he brought a deadly weapon to use in the crime.

your second case is a TERRIBLE example because he was committing a premeditated crime and would then be using a gun in the commission of it. if you're citing THIS as proof, you need to rethink your argument.

the first case, i'm going to be honest with you, i don't see anyone charging as manslaughter because the guy got into a drunken fight and killed someone. so it's not about the gun, it's about the intent: i MEAN to assault this man in a drunken rage.

also, let us not forget that some jurisdictions --your example provides none-- have specific offenses on the books meant to make their courts "tough on gun crime." there's no discussion if that factors in.