Not in practice. If there is a mark on her the man will almost certainly be punished unless there are multiple witnesses telling a completely unambiguous story. At best neither will be punished. It is almost impossible for a woman to face legal jeopardy in a fight with a man, no matter what she does. The only exceptions are when it can be proven that he took NO action against her AT ALL. Once he takes action, regardless of the circumstances, her legal safety is in practice guaranteed in all but the most unusual and well documented(cameras) circumstances.

There's a datum missing here. Leaving it out creates a misleading perspective.

When one person hits and the other doesn't hit back, it's 71% likely to be the woman who hits.

That doesn't equal 71% of violence is instigated by women. It just means that more men than women are likely not to hit back. We need to know what percentage of violence is non-reciprocal before this statistic becomes meaningful in terms of overall violence.

Anonymous who is convinced that females are given a free pass on domestic violence--where are you getting your data? My mother works in conjunction with child services, and I know for a fact that in her area it doesn't matter if you're male or female, or even if what you did had any chance of hurting the other person. Make a violent gesture, you just get locked up.

All of these sorts of laws vary state to state; enforcement guidelines may be even more local than that. If the enforcement of your locality isn't to your taste, dude, write a letter. I don't think the situation you are talking about is typical in this day and age.

But seriously, folks, are we all pretending we don't understand what's going on most of the time? Women hit men to make an impression, not because they think they can hurt them. There are exceptions, of course, but mostly it's "I'M UPSET AND YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO ME SO *smack*" It's like when a small child lashes out when it's not getting it's way. Fundamentally, it's an expression of powerlessness.

We do know something else is missing. Shelters for straight men who are victimised by women.

No state funding for them is allowed due to lobbying by NOW.

Why do feminists hate men and boys? Is their hatred ever going to end?

Living in Tennessee, I've seen a lot of coverage of this case.

I think Mary Winkler's original, taped confession should be required reading for anyone expressing an opinion on the case.

In the confession, which was not extracted under duress (the interviewer repeatedly asks if she is comfortable, if she wants a coke, if she want to go on) she makes two statements which contradict her later testimony in the trial.

1) She says that she killed her husband because he yelled at her for falling asleep during a movie, that it was the last straw, and that her self-esteem made her kill him. She specifically states more than once that her husband never hurt her physically, she was just tired of him "riding her for every little thing."

2) She says that she remembers trying to get a good footing on the pillows on the floor around the bed because she was worried the gun would kick when she fired it.

Her trial testimony was a little different. She says she doesn't remember getting the gun or firing it. She says her husband abused her physically.

Considering that she had an obvious motive for lying, which do you think is the truth?

"It's like when a small child lashes out when it's not getting it's way. Fundamentally, it's an expression of powerlessness."

How sick and completely untrue.

I don't think the dead Mr. Winkler would have viewed the hold in his back as a gesture of weakness.

Clara Harris was not expressing "weakness" when she ran over her husband, twice, killing him. With his daughter from a previous marriage in the seat next to her, a girl who has been further traumatised by her stepmother's attempts to whitewash her crime.

Socorro Caro wasn't powerless when she shot three of her four children dead as a way to further abuse her husband, after physically abusing him for years.

Larissa Schuster wasn't powerless after she put her unconscious husband in a barrel of hydrochloric acid, pouring in more after she noticed his legs weren't fully dissolved by the acid.

How much more bullshit and denial do we need to see on BS and other blogs regarding violence against men? Apologists who ignore this kind of violence are reprehensible and pathetic.

The victimhood lie only takes you so far.

(i paid attention because i too thought exoneration inconceivable). she looked like she was on medication and of course, she was coached by lawyers, but this is what she related.
the baby woke. started crying. the husband bitched (said, "it's your turn" or something like that). he kicked her out of bed onto the floor. he went into the baby's room and held it(don't remember if it was a boy or girl or what exact age - months, i think). she was afraid for the baby and took him/her from him. he goes into the room and back to sleep. she goes into their room and shoots him.
now picture what happened. the baby cries. he pulls the pillow over his head, says it's your turn. "kicks" her? what i picture is he nudges her out with his foot, trying to go back to sleep. if she was out of bed, she went back. it was *he* who went to tend the baby. both are pissed off. a reason for her, with car keys, children and shotgun to shoot him in the back? none at all. why was it decided that way? who knows? OJ syndrome? his parents are now raising the children and if there's any justice in tennessee, will continue to do so.
i think parson jim's first post(pg 1) is a reasoned explanation of why it's funny - but things that now are thought funny, like making people seem like complete idiots, are also thought funny. it's a *meaner* humor than when i was growing up.
as to males and females resistance to injury - do men far more than women get hurt in car crashes? the people who think they really would hurt someone with a punch, haven't done so (don't start now). when i drank i'd get into fights (that i always lost). it's not so easy to hurt someone. you get stitches but no broken bones. yes, you can be beaten to death - by anyone, but that is malice. it involves stomping or choke holds - intent. if a woman knocks a man silly with a pan, then hits him with a chair when he's down - he's finished. otherwise it's a fight. some bruises and perhaps stitches. in general, the more articulate, the more the use of hurtful words (and that's not swearing, it's cruelty) the less articulate fight back physically. what's the answer? let's use her clip. there a very large black woman beat up her boyfriend. he wasn't a "wuss" as someone said. he threw some punches but only for show. he didn't run away. she dragged him around until finally a large black man took him away. should that guy have done it earlier? should the police (who passed by but didn't interfere) have intervened? to my way of thinking, both of them should have spent the night in jail, WITH NO CHARGES, no arrest record. you don't want to hurt their chances for employment, just have them cool down.
i once saw a horrifying video. a maybe 50 year old white man pinned down by a very large black woman in a park in LA. her forearm was on his neck, her weight pressing. he died. the worst part was that a crowd of maybe twenty gathered around, including the young black man with the video camera. if he had merely *shown* it to her, and said, "i have this on tape", he wouldn't have died. someone must have said something. someone must have thrown the first punch. it got out of hand. the crowd gathered to watch a "breaking" tragedy. this should not ruin two lives. more. the folks in the crowd won't get over this either.