Slarti has an interesting post on the Winkler business concerning abuse and the difference between the male and female assumptions about abuse in a case such as Winkler’s.
I chimed in on this for several reasons. Some commenters wondered why Ms. Winkler just didn’t up and leave if she was being abused. As my wife said this morning when we were watching the news..’if you don’t understand why she didn’t leave, you don’t understand southern church of Christ culture’. Divorce is still a big taboo. The only ‘scriptural’ reason for divorce is adultry. You keep the family intact at large costs to yourself, because appearances do matter (that’s not just a C of C axiom).
I’m also a great believer in Occam’s Razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.
People who are not trained to kill don’t kill without a reason unless they are truly mentally ill. That’s not to say that the killing is always moral or justified, but people just don’t kill for the hell of it.
I’d venture to say (as I did in the comments at Slarti’s) that you could put every spousal killing into one or more of the following three categories*:
3. Abuse – with self-defense being a sub-category of abuse
It was never a matter of just plain onery-ness. People who are not insane just don’t kill their spouse for little reason. There is some provocation. Doesn’t mean it’s ok, but always remember Occam’s Razor.
So, I disagree with Slarti’s premise that men look to trials such as this and wonder (or wager) when the ‘abuse card’ is going to be played. When the other major reasons are eliminated, abuse is what you have left.
Apparently the jury agreed: voluntary manslaughter implies provocation.
*unless, again, the killer is just plain bonked out. Sorry for the technical medical jargon.