There's at least five comments that either question if the wife was abusive or present the possibility that she was. The closest comments to "demonizing" the husband are ones that say he took it too far even in the case that it was self defense and the comments that point out that it is a common suspicion deflection attic for abusers to claim to be the victim. Both of which are true statements. In some states the husband would have charges filed for being the least injured, in other states both the husband and wife would face charges. In the case of her being abusive and him snapping, if he kept hitting her after she was unable to injure him, it was no longer about self defense but about revenge. If he was abused to the extent that while he was defending himself he could no longer tell if she was a threat to him, his case will probably be built around the "battered wife/spouse" defense. Most of the comments seem geared towards pointing out that the OP isn't responsible for his coworker's choice either physically attack her(if she wasn't being physically violent) or for his decision to not stop once she was deterred enough he could escape. I will accept that there seems to be a focus on physical abuse as the culprit here- it is possible that the wife was emotionally and mentally abusive but never physically harmed the coworker. If that's the case and he physically retaliated for the no physical abuse, it will make his defense much harder because of the skewed perception society has of emotional abuse, particularly when men are the victims. Mostly because of the flawed idea that any man that is injured by emotional abuse isn't a "real" man. Basically I am saying that the comment section has been rather neutral on castigating either spouse without more information on their home life.

GhostFox, your comments have been very well said. I can honestly say that my thoughts, feelings, and comments would be exactly the same if the genders were reversed. My problem isn't that a man beat a woman. Rather, my problem is one person beat another. Gender is not important. Violence is violence and it's inexcusable, regardless of whatever arbitrary factors like gender, race, etc. exist. This is, of course, excluding self-defense. And nobody is denying that this situation could have come out of abuse and very well may have been self-defense. There is a line though. There is a point where the situation is no longer a credible threat to your safety and well-being. When someone continues after a threat has been subdued, they are no longer defending themselves. They are seeking revenge and punishing a person. Vigilante justice is not okay and defending it is a very slippery slope.

True. Doesn't sound like that's what happened though...