I completely agree. She assaulted him, and he assaulted her back.
The difference in result is not a consequence of moral difference, it’s a result of the size/strength disparity.
IOW, they’re equally culpable morally. His superior size/strength and consequent moral responsibility to not use it against someone weaker is at least counter-balanced by her initiating the violence.
It’s a lot like those fights in bars. Two guys with too much alcohol and testosterone in their blood get into it. So which one is the perpetrator and which one the victim of the crime? Even Solomon would find it hard to figure out.
Given the evidence, I think the logical thing to do would be charge them both.
” His superior size/strength and consequent moral responsibility to not use it against someone weaker is at least counter-balanced by her initiating the violence.”
Show that post to your wife?