've just properly looked up manslaughter on wikipedia and although it may not be the best reference place, i found this
Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.
[edit] Criminal negligence
Negligence consists of conduct by an individual which is not reasonable -- that is, the individual did not act with the care and caution of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. This "reasonable person" is fictitious, of course, but reflects the standard of conduct which society wishes to impose. Violation of this standard may lead to civil liability for the consequences of the negligent behavior.
Negligence rises to the level of criminal negligence where the conduct reaches a higher degree of carelessness or inattention, perhaps to the point of indifference.
[edit] Recklessness
Recklessness or willful blindness is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill, consequently a resulting death may not be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfuly disregarded it.
In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.
In some jurisdictions, such as Victoria, British Columbia, recklessness is sufficient mens rea to justify a conviction for murder.
now based on that, it all kinda depends on whether or not one believed parker took reasonable precautions that a 'reasonable person' would in the same situation. I think you're given the impression that under the stress, you deem him pulling eddie out of the 'blast zone' was reasonable enough.
But let's look at it this way
Those bombs do not belong to peter, he was unaware of the time of bomb that would be used (in all fairness it could have been a sliver device that popped out), he's not aware of the fusage time or the magnitude of this so called blast range. IN all fairness, the device he used may had taken out the whole floor level, its range was certainly bigger than the perimeter parker originally sent up (as seen by fires outside of the blast zone and the bars being bent back by the force of the explosion).
Now considering this and he acted with the use of devices he is not familiar with with an unknown blast radius, throwing such a device in order to detonate and cause harm to another lifeform without this knowledge COULD be seen as wreckless. What is also potentially wreckless is leaving a unprotected civilian in potentially the blast range of device that nobody is aware of the potential damage it might cause. Especially one who has shown a record of attachment to the symbiote and has also shown himself to be a danger to others (or desired a serious wish for harm to be inflicted to others).
Now if these were parker's bombs, i think you may have me trumped here but operating devices one is unfamiliar with, especially explosive ones may easily be deemed as wreckless behaviour, especially with unsecured civilians around and because of this i think spidey is potentially accountable for involuntary manslaughter.
t:
