Here is a statement of the law as "provocation" in this State:
An instruction on the issue of provocation in answer to a defendant's claim of self-defense is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence that: (1) the defendant did some act or used some words which provoked the attack (2) that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack; and (3) that the act was done or the words were used for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm.
Essentially, a defendant cannot use the defense of "self defense" if he provoked the situation.
Now, women commonly get off murder for killing their husband by claiming "self defense" often when they poor gas on a sleeping husband and burn him alive, shoot the husband in the back while he is doing nothing violent at all, etc. The idea is that he had supposedly done violent or abusive things in the past.
I have never heard of this type of provocation exception to the defense of "self defense" being successful in the "domestic violence" concept.
Instead, I hear "there is no excuse."
She can have an affair, mock him, insult him, etc. to no end and "there is no excuse."
You know it seeems to me that this is yet another example of a different law application to some (e.g. women) than every one else.
