Examination of this topic through the lens of actual case precedents exposes the impassable chasm separating practical jurisprudence from theoretical morality or the “gut impulse” to support the battered woman’s actions. For example, the Judge gave no jury order indicating it mattered that Hanington had admitted to years of vicious abuse towards Kelso because in US Jurisprudence “today’s murder” pays no attention to past acts of injustice by the murder victim and only grants affirmative defense to a strictly limited set of circumstances whose temporal proximity to the murder would leave no person (or juror) any reason to doubt the absolute requirement to kill.