>But I'm not looking at it from the courtroom perspective.
>Because that is largely dependent of the jury's biases and
>preconceived notions.

in my experience juries tend to apply the law (jury instructions) to the facts (evidence they saw and heard at trial) appropriately. keep in mind i'm not just talking about high profile jury trial verdicts reported in the news.

>Our biases tell us that that is just a woman and there's no
>way she could inflict any harm on him and that he should know
>that.

nope that's not going on for me at all, actually.

>Similarly a jury's bias might lead them to believe that a
>hoodie wearing black man is inherently aggressive and side
>with the police in a excessive force case.

not so much. having actually tried excessive force cases and even served on a jury in a similar case i believe after they've sat through days of testimony and been instructed by a judge they don't necessarily fall back on bias when they deliberate.

>The outcome of a trial does not always resolve the question of
>what is right.

no, it's more about what was proved in court.

>I'm not trying to be in the He Man Woman Haters club.

oh okay. if you say so.

I just
>believe in consistency.

i don't think you're trying very hard. that's a pretty constant dog whistle used by woman-haters.

>This story would play out a lot differently (both in court and
>in the news) if he had punched a frail, anorexic man instead
>of this woman.

but she's not a frail, anorexic man. and my opinion would be the same if she were - homie was retaliating unfairly.