What’s the difference between Manslaughter and 2nd Degree Murder ?

Manslaughter is not deliberate, murder is.  What is 2nd degree murder depends on exactly how it is defined in the local law.  In the UK, it doesn't exist - all murder is just murder.

The definition of murder in English law nicely illustrates the difference.  It is a common law offence and it has been established in murder cases over the years that it means "unlawful killing with malice aforethought".  And having malice aforethought is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (and GBH is clearly defined in English law - I say that for the benefit of other readers who haven't heard of it).  So if there is no such intention, it's manslaughter.

In this case, the presumption is that it is murder as a gun was used, and the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.  But if the gun just happened to be there, and she grabbed it in rage and shot him in revenge for what he did to her, I can see that it's possible to argue manslaughter is a more appropriate charge.

Compare that with the English case of Ruth Ellis, who murdered her boyfriend.  She was angry with him, deliberately acquired a revolver, went to meet him with it and shot him with all six bullets.  This is obviously murder, she deliberately went after him with a lethal weapon, how can it not be murder? - and she was convicted of that and hanged.  But the case led to a new defence in the Homicide Act 1957, where you can plead "manslaughter due to diminished responsibility" - that is to say, you weren't fully in your right mind.  You need a psychiatrist to provide evidence of this, and it may have saved her from the hangman's noose.

Obviously this isn't a British case, but it revolves around the same thing - yes, she shot him, but WHY?  Was there any pre-planned intention?

Here's a case that could make you think about this - should it have been murder, or was "manslaughter by reason of provocation" right?  http://www.thecnj.com/islington/2009/102309/inews1...  Now if the prosecution got that one right, you could say the same should happen to this girl.  If there really was an attempted rape, she was certainly provoked.

In theory it has to do with intent. In reality it's more often given as a lesser plea just to keep the case from clogging up our already backlogged court system.

Without a SPECIFIC jurisdiction, no one knows how EITHER term is legally defined wherever you were.

As a general rule, any degree of murder requires actual intent to kill.

Manslaughter only requires  causing the death of a person, not necessarily intent to kill.

Note: If she claims the person she shoot was attempting to rape her at the time, she is claiming self defense.

If that is true, she shouldn't be convicted of ANY crime.

Textbook definition:  "A person committing second degree murder, while not premeditated, has full understanding of their actions and kills someone anyway. Manslaughter involves a circumstance that may cause a reasonable person to become emotionally disturbed or considered as a murder fueled by passion or impulse."

They both carry a maximum sentence of life in prison 

Murder is killing with a motive and planning the killing. 

Manslaughter is killing a person without motive or planning. Vehicular manslaughter is killing a random person because you were drunk or whatever. You didn’t plan to kill that specific person. 

I don’t know the case but she was charged with murder because she planned on killing him after all those years of abuse. Is that the scenario.