Is abuse a legal justification for murder?

< Prev | 1 | 2

Most Popular

• Most Viewed

• Top Rated

• Most E-mailed

Check out these ambush makeovers!

Idea of gas-tax holiday runs into a dead end

First of 5 feet found in Canada is identified

Obama meets with Afghan president

Africa's women last and least in food crisis

Most viewed on MSNBC.com

Resource guide

Winkler’s actions sound deliberate and intentional to me. They don’t sound like they arose out of self-defense or in the heat of a passionate argument. Matthew Winkler was in bed. He was unarmed. Winkler went to the closet, got a gun, took it out of its case and shot him. She grabbed her kids and fled the state. It is not like she just grabbed a lamp or whatever was closest to her and bashed him in the middle of a fight or in self-defense.

Let’s say for the sake of argument she was a battered spouse. In her own words, she said she was sick of her husband’s constant criticism over the “way I walk, what I eat, everything. It was just building up to this point. I was just tired of it. I guess I just got to a point and snapped.” Let’s say for the sake of argument she did just “snap.” The snap argument would mitigate intent. She wasn’t in her “right” mind. But it doesn’t sound like snapping to me when she walked to that closet, got the shotgun, pointed it at her husband as he lay in bed and pulled the trigger.

Based on those facts, I believe she formed the intent to kill. She says the gun went off by accident. Guns don’t magically discharge bullets; their triggers have to be pulled. If she was just holding the gun as she claims, then why was she holding it with her finger on the trigger unless she intended to fire it?

Story continues below ↓

Did she just snap?
If you listen to the evidence in this case, as I understand it, I don’t think you can buy the “battered-spouse-I-just-snapped” defense either.

According to reports, the Winklers argued the night before his death. Mary was upset over the way Matthew disciplined one of her daughters. She wanted him to listen to her so to get his attention Mary allegedly went to the bedroom closet where she knew her husband kept a 12-gauge shotgun he used for turkey hunting and took it out of its case. She says she does not remember firing the gun, but remembers that the noise didn’t sound as loud as she thought it would.

The single shotgun blast left 77 shotgun pellets in Matthew’s back and knocked him out of bed. According to statements Mary gave to police, as her husband lay on the floor, she wiped the blood from his mouth with a sheet. When he asked her why, she said she was sorry. She told her children they had to leave because Daddy was hurt and she had called 911. She never made that call.

The shot broke Matthew Winkler’s spine. He couldn’t move. There was a phone cord and jack underneath him in blankets on the floor. It is unclear if Mary ripped the phone out of the wall so he couldn’t use it or if his injuries rendered him helpless to use it. He was alive when Mary Winkler left the room, but he was bleeding to death as she went down the hall to get her three girls out of the house. She left the state with the girls in the family mini van, stayed in a hotel with an indoor pool, and then took them to the beach the next day to “have a good day” before the “bad days.”

It sounds to me like she knew what she was doing and that she knew she had done something wrong. I believe she is sorry, I believe she is remorseful, but that does not legally excuse or justify what she did.

I do not believe our law permits a battered spouse to legally kill one’s abuser, when not in imminent danger, but simply when one has “had enough.”

We need to do more for battered women, but giving them a free pass to kill isn’t the answer.