![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (42)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
GoogleWalsh was charged with class C felony domestic assault in the second degree, the unclassified felony of armed criminal action and class D felony unlawful use of a weapon.
An incident report from Marshall police alleges Walsh attacked a woman in the residence and cut her thumb with a hunting knife so severely that the wound required 16 stitches. Officers on the scene allege Walsh appeared to be intoxicated and told them the woman's injury occurred when she became upset with him and "grabbed him." The woman allegedly told officers "I thought he was gonna kill me."
Other information in the probable cause statement indicates Walsh allegedly slapped and kicked the victim.
The range of punishment for a class C felony includes up to seven years in Missouri Department of Corrections, or up to one year in county jail, and/or up to a $5,000 fine. Conviction of the class D felony could bring a sentence of up to four years in Missouri Department of Corrections, or up to one year in county jail, and up to a $1,000 fine.
Conviction of felonious armed criminal action is punishable by not less than three years in Missouri Department of Corrections.
As of Wednesday afternoon, Oct. 28, Walsh is in custody at Saline County Justice Facility; a court appearance has not been scheduled.
Charges contained in reports provided by law enforcement officials are not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting charges must be presented before a jury, whose duty is to determine if the accused is guilty or not guilty of the charges.
Contact Kathy Fairchild at marshallhealth@socket.net
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
I think the police and the courts, law... are starting to be more aware of the male points on this,Being a women,and used to be around courtrooms before I retired, I have seen and heard of some women getting protective order as a means to get even or cause problems it easy to see it.But a judge just has to here a person say they are afraid and thats all it takes.
Interesting discussion... I work with abused men; and, have for years. I'm a member of the largest domestic violence council in America. I've helped design domestic violence prevention programs and train others to operate such programs. I am fairly familiar if not very familiar with all aspects of all issues related to relationship violence, which includes the loosely defined "domestic violence". This thread seems to be concerned with "battering" which is a small subset of virtually all legal definitions of "domestic violence", "partner violence", "intimate partner violence" or whatever label one chooses to use. If battery is at issue virtually all reliable data, except crime data (seriously flawed by nature of collection and definitions), then we absolutely know that men and women perpetrate such violence at roughly equal rates; that is a scientific fact. It is abundantly clear that arrest and conviction rates anywhere in America or the westernized world reflect the 50/50 perpetration rate of women and men. In all cases substantially more men are arrested, jailed, convicted, put in prison, restrained from their homes, children and property; and have their lives virtually destroyed, largely by false accusations and a refusal by the system to rid itself of gender biased assumptions. Why? Chivalry, political correctness, and the ideologically driven foundation for today's Domestic Violence Industry, the horrendously flawed, fat funded, and feminist driven Violence Against Women Act. VAWA is one constitutional violation stacked on another. Except for Jim Crow laws VAWA may be the most divisive, corrupt, and debitating piece of legislative garbage ever conceived, though well hidden under a title of suspect victimhood. If you wonder how that can be you might want to read "Biden Babble" at http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/09/17/bide... Oh, recent studies tend to indicate that women in America and in parts of the UK, NOT men, perpetrate substantially more battering types of domestic violence than men, 70% or more... interesting, don't you think?
"Hope you never get called for jury duty."
I get called every few years. I'm a jury nullificationist thanks largely to the fact that the corrupt violence against women act is enforced anywhere in America. The last time I was sworn in on a panel, I was asked by a judge if I'd follow the judge's instructions, I informed him that the constitution says, "We the people," not, "We the judges," and that as a jury nullificationist, I would sit in judgment on the law as well as the facts in the case. He and one of the attorneys conferred for several minutes, and I heard some mumbling about Supreme Court upheld jury nullification. A few moments later I was dismissed from service. Oh, by the way, when I was sworn in to the jury panel along with the other panelists, I said "yes," when asked to serve, then added, "under duress."
And here's this from the Declaration of Independence of the United States:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
"Ray: I'll ask you again. Can you point to a case in THIS community where you believe that justice was prejudiced against the man in favor of the woman?"
I already answered that question, saying I suspect all cases of d.v. in Marshall as being handled in a biased way (prejudiced) against men, based on training of police, prosecutors and judges coming from the ideologically corrupt, radical feminist (gender feminist), violence against women act.
I don't live in Marshall now, but I have. My parents are buried in Ridge Park cemetery and I have scores, if not hundreds, of relatives living in the Marshall/Saline Country area.
I'm not employed by RADAR or a similar organization. And I've certainly posted significant other sources besides RADAR, including the CDC.
Ray: I'll ask you again. Can you point to a case in THIS community where you believe that justice was prejudiced against the man in favor of the woman? You continue to post lengthy diatribes, but you aren't focusing on what happens *HERE*. Is that because you don't know? Or is it because, as I suspect, that you are not from this community and are instead employed by RADAR or a similar organization to spend your workday posting about this problem wherever you find the opportunity?
I am not in complete disagreement with you, by the way, because I am quite sure there are battered men. Maybe not as many as there are battered women, but they are out there.
Ray - let me repeat - it depends on the judge so every district is different as far as the person who got the restraining order violating it. I have seen that first hand so don't be so quick to argue.
I'm done. You have your mind set and nothing is going to sway you. Hope you never get called for jury duty.
http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091102....
"A recent article at crosscut.com (http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19135) illustrates what happens all too often. The police, the prosecutor, and the judge, all chasing VAWA funding, choose to see domestic violence even in cases where the woman they want to paint as victim vehemently insists that rather than domestic violence, what actually happened was that her husband accidentally knocked her over while saving her from being run over by oncoming traffic. In doing so, these officials perpetrate massive harm on the innocent citizens they're charged with protecting.
In no other area of the law have civil rights and due process been so weakened. DV laws lead to politically driven justice instead of the impartial rule of law guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions."
"- if the man is the abused one and the woman gets a protective order against him, that order also protects the man in that the woman must also stay away from him. If she breaks the order, she has violated the law. It works both ways."
No, it does not. It isn't what you know that hurts you, it's what you know that just isn't so like the statement above. Overwhelmingly, law enforcement does not respond to complaints of a violation of a restraining order coming from an innocent and battered man who's had a restraining order taken out against him by a violent woman. And that's all thanks to the misandrist, ideological training coming from the radical feminist based, violence against women act.
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/09/04/2...
"By placing the burden of proof on the accused to show his innocence, many worry restraining orders violate fundamental notions of fairness and due process. At one New Jersey seminar, startled judges were told, "Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, 'See ya' around.'"
Judge Milton Raphaelson of Massachusetts once opined, "Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders and the arrests and conflicts ensuring therefrom."
Each year, the Violence Against Women Act spends up to $75 million to promote restraining orders. That's the kind of wasteful federal program that leaves a bad taste in taxpayers' mouths."
Ray - I too hope I never have a son, brother, grandson or anyone being abused. Domestic violence has become common place and is getting worse. The issuance of a protective order depends on the judge who issues them so every county has different basics they use to determine whether one is needed or not. With that - if the man is the abused one and the woman gets a protective order against him, that order also protects the man in that the woman must also stay away from him. If she breaks the order, she has violated the law. It works both ways.
It also gets back to "Hurt me once, shame on you. Hurt be twice, shame on me." Too many times the abused party keeps going back for more. Strong family and friend support works best in those cases.
Ray,
I agree that it is too simple for any individual to obtain a protective order against another. For example: after having been threatened, I noted the method in which I intended to defend myself; in doing so, was arrested, spent a night in jail, and had two order of protections against me. Of course, neither of the order of protections held any validity and were easily dismissed. However, the incident is still on my police record and is viewable on casenet.
Additionally, order of protections are tools that can be utilized by a cheating/disgruntled spouse. All it takes is someone to lie, request a order of protection, and the system is manipulated in their favor. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Air Force Wife - I hope you never have a brother, son, grandson or any other male close to you in a relationship with a violent woman who batters him, and then have him falsely accused as the batterer. If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to call the truth garbage. There are women in abusive relationships but the percentage leans as much toward men being the victims. As for the protective order - too many are issued. Sometimes those innocent men are not dead physically, but their lives are totally destroyed. Some are literally driven to suicide, and others wish they were dead. Shame on the violence against woman act and all those who support the witch-hunting of innocent men that is rampant in America.
Ray - I hope you never have a sister, daughter, granddaughter or any other female close to you in a violent relationship. If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to post the garbage you've posted. There are men in abusive relationships but the percentage leans more toward women being the victims. As for the protective order - not all are issued and sometimes those are the women who come up missing or worse.
I just received this today. Please note especially the second paragraph.
http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091102....
"On October 6th, the New Jersey Supreme Court announced it would hear the Crespo appeal. Crespo is the case that, among other things, challenges the constitutionality of Protective Orders issued under the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard of proof, which is among the lowest of all legal standards of proof in the U.S. A lower court judge ruled that "Preponderance of the Evidence" is not sufficient to remove a person from their home and deny them access to their children. The appeals court overturned the decision. But New Jersey attorney David Heleniak has convinced the N.J. Supreme Court to review the case. According to Heleniak, a victory in the New Jersey high court could have ripple effects across the country.
The way protective orders are issued is one example of the erosion of civil rights and due process protections in cases alleging domestic violence. Mandatory arrest, "predominant aggressor" and "primary aggressor" laws, no drop prosecution, low standards of proof for protective orders, over-broad definitions of domestic violence, and Federal funding that encourages officials to interpret as many cases as possible as domestic violence cases, have all lead to the predictable result: massive civil rights violations in the area of domestic violence."
Given the ad hominem attacks posted against me here and the bias of the violence against women act against men at all levels of government, I'd be suspicious of any domestic violence arrests, prosecutions, and convictions anywhere in the U.S.
Marshall is not so insular a community that it is immune to the corruption in domestic violence law that comes out of Washington, D.C., or that goes on in bigger cities. It appears some small communities exhibit an acquiescence in regards to the VAWA, that if it's going on in bigger cities then it must be okay.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," said Thomas Jefferson. Corruption can sneak into law in America as it has in other places. There's no better example than the witch-hunting of men that goes on through VAWA, in my opinion. After WWII, the Nuremberg trials were held to hold those accountable who committed war crimes. When a defense was used by some war criminals that they were "just following orders," it was rebuked by American legal professionals, who said, "There's a law above the law." In other words, when laws are corrupt as many were in WWII Germany, and as VAWA is today, people at all levels have a moral responsibility to not participate in the atrocities. There's no excuse for the corrupt, radical feminist ideology known as the violence against women act that witch-hunts so many innocent men and tramples their constitutional rights, abuses them, falsely accuses them, falsely arrests them, falsely prosecutes them and falsely convicts them. The violence against women act is a "gender Jim Crow" law and is unconstitutional and unAmerican. As long as the VAWA is enforced in America, Stalinism lives.
"ray: men are stronger than women so the are always guilty"
That reminds me of the case of Mary Winkler who put a shotgun to her sleeping, Pastor husband's back and pulled the trigger. Last I heard she's now free and raising her children.
http://tinyurl.com/ygnvb3f
"Murderess Mary Winkler Gets Her Kids Back"
Women use knives, guns, poison, and other weapons to level that playing field.
http://www.glennsacks.com/nowhere_to_go....
"Cal State Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert has compiled and summarized 117 different studies with over 72,000 respondents that found that women are as responsible for initiating and engaging in domestic violence as men are. Studies by researchers R.I. McNeeley and Coramae Richey Mann show that women frequently compensate for their smaller size by employing the element of surprise and using weapons, often including guns, knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and baseball bats."
http://www.glennsacks.com/female_murders...
"The truth is, female violence in American families is anything but rare."
and
"As noted by author Warren Farrell, a high profile expert witness in domestic violence cases, women tend to use "hands off" methods such as smothering and poisoning, which are less traceable. When killing husbands or other adults, women often hire others to do the killing. Female murderers tend to be older than male murderers, and thus are looked upon with more trust and less suspicion.
However, according to crime journalist Patricia Pearson, author of When She Was Bad: How and Why Women Get Away With Murder, the reasons women escape punishment go far beyond the evidence (or lack of it) left at the crime scene. Female killers, Pearson says, are often successful at turning their violent crime into victimhood by citing, among others, defenses such as Postpartum depression, Pre-Menstrual Syndrome, and Battered Wife Syndrome. According to Pearson:"
ray: men are stronger than women so the are always guilty
Sgates79:
Give me a break please, no really, show the integrity to question the biased violence against women act training, and statistics, the next time you're in one of those sessions, then see where that gets you on your career path.
http://www.glennsacks.com/baseball_playe...
"Domestic violence activist Greg Schmidt, a police lieutenant who created the Seattle police department's domestic violence investigation unit in 1994, says that cases like Erickson's demonstrate the way men are often presumed guilty in domestic disputes. He notes that mandatory arrest laws, such as California's, frustrate police officers because they are "expected to make arrests in petty incidents, often where the woman is the aggressor, the abuse is mutual, or it is unclear who the aggressor was."
"The domestic violence industry--the trainers, the shelter directors, etc.--can spin things however they want," he says, "but most street cops know that women are just as likely to start domestic disputes as men are. But arresting women puts you under lot of scrutiny. It's bad for your career."
Schmidt also criticizes the dominant aggressor doctrine which discourages dual arrests (which are often an appropriate measure) and instructs police to downplay who struck the first blow. Instead, police are asked to focus on who is (supposedly) in control of the situation and who is more fearful--often code words for "arrest the man."
Part of the problem is the training that police officers receive from the domestic violence industry, which insists that 95% of domestic violence is committed by men. Southern California domestic violence consultant Anne O'Dell, who has conducted over 500 domestic violence trainings of police officers and commanders, judges, district attorneys, and victim advocates, tells her trainees that "if a police officer is arresting more than 8% women, you've got a real problem. When an officer arrests 12% or 15% women, I'm outraged." O'Dell says that dual arrests should occur in no more than 3% of incidents."
Please question domestic violence law and training based on truth, not radical feminist ideology.
http://www.cafcusa.org/
"The founders, pioneers and today's most respected experts together from the historic conference, "From Ideology to Inclusion: Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence." February 15-16, 2008, Sacramento, California. Many of the presenters featured in the DVDs also serve on the editorial board of the new peer-reviewed journal, Partner Abuse,"
Please question domestic violence law and training based on the facts and constitutional law.
http://www.mediaradar.org/
Oh, by the way, most politicians are men (elected predominately by a female electorate), and they are quicker than trained canines to roll over for every radical feminist piece of legislation that comes their way, so don't attempt to mislead by disingenuously implying that being male somehow means males are going to get fair treatment, just because an authority figure over them might happen to be another male.
Ray, give me a break! As someone from the law enforcement community, we could care less what sex the "primary aggressor" is when investigating a domestic assault. You can be assured there's no conspiracy against men. Should be easy enough to figure out considering most police officers are men. But don't let me stop you from bashing the radical feminists.
Adj. 1. nonreciprocal - not reciprocal
reciprocal, mutual - concerning each of two or more persons or things; especially given or done in return; "reciprocal aid"; "reciprocal trade"; "mutual respect"; "reciprocal privileges at other clubs"
"nonreciprocal partner violence"
i.e. He smacks her, she does not smack him back....the abuse is nonreciprocal.
Unless you are arguing that because she grabbed him it is ok for him to attempt to cut her thumb off.....which would make you insane. Especially considering the only evidence that is what happened is the word of the intoxicated perpetrator who just tried to cut a woman's finger off. I don't know about you, but I believe him...after all, he seems like a trustworthy fellow..ya, right.
I used to read these blogs and think what is the matter with some of the people who post here. Then I decided to read blogs from some bigger population centers and now the bloggers here seem quite tame to the collection of wierdos, freaks and malcontents posting in KC, St.Louis and other metropolitan areas
Do you have anything you can say on your own, Ray, without using the words "domestic violence industry," "corrupt," "misandrist," or "radical feminist," such as an example from THIS community that you can prove?
Somebody's got mommy issues.
Why do I post here? To confront the bias and corruption of the taxpayer funded d.v. industry as well as challenge the bias of the fourth estate in not openly and vigorously questioning the corrupt work of the taxpayer funded d.v. industry, especially the misandrist, radical feminist based training they provide to police, prosecutors, judges and others.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.h...
"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 256 scholarly investigations: 201 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 253,500."
R.A.D.A.R., Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting
http://www.mediaradar.org/
Ray: There's nothing in your post that would cause us to delete it.
But I'm not thrilled about this comment:
"When it comes to journalistic integrity in America, even a small town in Missouri - "show me." If one thing is overly apparent in journalism these days, it's that integrity in the business of journalism is dead."
This kind of close-minded comment "shows me" that no matter what we publish, you don't believe it. Why, then, are you wasting your time here?
Kathy said: "Ray: If we receive a report of domestic violence involving an attack on a man by a woman, we won't hesitate to publish it, I assure you. This just doesn't happen to be the one."
When I attended an international conference on domestic violence funded through the violence against women act, I talked with a couple of young women working in the radically-feminized, domestic violence industry and explained to them that the government (Department of Justice) in 2000, said there were 1247 women and 440 men who were victims of intimate partner homicide. Without taking a second to respond, one of the young women said, "All those men were batterers." That's typical of the radical-feminist mindset present throughout the taxpayer funded domestic violence industry, including training programs for police, prosecutors, judges, educators, journalists, etc.
Given that kind of biased, bigoted, misandrist, radical feminist mindset that's central to training coming out of the VAWA, I very highly suspect any male victims of domestic violence will automatically be framed to be batterers. I have no confidence that any police, prosecutors, judges, or newspaper reporters educated in our liberal colleges will ever recognize any male victim of domestic violence, or at least not nearly as many male victims as are actually victims.
There may occasionally be a token battered man used just to give the false impression that justice is actually being administered, but given the overwhelming disparity between peer reviewed scholarly research on domestic violence and crime date, it's very clear justice in this area is a huge farce. Spare me a token offering, trying to show journalistic integrity, when the entire, radically feminized, domestic violence industry in America is rotten to the core. When it comes to journalistic integrity in America, even a small town in Missouri - "show me." If one thing is overly apparent in journalism these days, it's that integrity in the business of journalism is dead. I'll keep a copy of this for my records in case the MDN once again censors my truthful input.
Ray: If we receive a report of domestic violence involving an attack on a man by a woman, we won't hesitate to publish it, I assure you. This just doesn't happen to be the one.
The ignorance in the general public is in regard to corruption in the taxpayer funded domestic violence industry. The lack of compassion is against battered men. It's very sexist to mention only one sex as domestic violence victims, when clearly both sexes are victims. What about abused fathers, brothers, sons, etc.? I didn't see you mention any of those in a previous poster's comments, but the misandrist, taxpayer funded domestic violence industry hasn't been recognizing them either. There are plenty of people who suffer because of domestic violence, but it is overwhelmingly men who are again victimized by the evil, taxpayer funded domestic violence industry. Hey, Democrat News show some integrity and print the truth. Either that or just admit your propagandists and apologists for the misandrist d.v. industry.
Ray:
Abusive attack?? Come on....really?? The only abusive attack is the one my sister went through on Tuesday. Getting through to you is obviously like getting blood from a stone, beating a dead horse, etc, etc. If it were your sister, mother, daughter, loved one.....well I would like to think you would be somewhat "real" about it. You say "wake up and smell the corruption in the domestic violence industry". I say "Wake up and smell the lack of compassion & ignorance in the general public. Everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion, it's just hard to stay objective when it hits so close to home. Still angry in Florida!!
ornda:
Your abusive attack of the messenger (me) is duly noted. I stand by comments about the corrupt violence against women act (VAWA) and the misandrist training of police, prosecutors, judges, etc. by the radical feminist run VAWA.
Wow!! If only everyone actually used their brains. Ray.....unless you are a close friend or relative of Chris's, it's absolutely disgusting that you would go to bat for this guy. As "born-n-raised" said earlier..look up his criminal history. It is unbelievable!! I did this morning as I sat 1300 miles away, not able to physically hug my sister, hold her and tell her "it's all gonna be ok". You are obviously an outsider who does not know this situation or the true victim of this "horrific crime". Maybe you should put your ego on the back burner for a little while and pull your heart out and use it. Have a little compassion for my sister and every other person (not woman or man specific) who has had to go through such a tragedy. Only the heartless and insecure would be so cynical. Good luck finding that heart of yours. Angry in Florida!!
Given the exact same situation, and the sexes of the parties involved are reversed (woman stabs man), it would be called self-defense and once again the man would be arrested.
Wake up and smell the corruption in the taxpayer funded domestic violence industry. The violence against women act (VAWA) is a radical feminist law that follows radical feminist ideology before facts in evidence, before due process, and before the constitution of the United States.
I agree chris has gotten away with to much!!!! The women that he attacked was my sister and we are very thankful that she was able to fight him off as he was attacking her, and then escape from him and call for help. It seems as though 5000 dollars is such a small amount for such a violent attack, if you dont think it was violent then put yourself in "the womans" place and her children and the rest of her family's place as we received the phone call of what this person had done to our loved one. Please be respectful in your comments about our sister and mom and please stand behind women who are attacked by these violent men and I THANK GOD SHE IS ALIVE!!!!!!!
Nonreciprocal means only one side is initiating the violence and in those situations it is women who are initiating the violence 70% of the time according to the CDC.
According to the CDC study in nonreciprocal d.v. women are the aggressors 70% of the time. In reciprocal women are the aggressors 50% of the time.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conte...
Of course I know what nonreciprocal means and in nonreciprocal d.v. as shown in that CDC study, the rates are about 50/50 for men and women. Nice try attacking the messenger, now deal with the fact that authorities are trained by misandrist radical feminists, reducing the taxpayer funded d.v. industry to little more than a misandrist, taxpayer funded hate movement.
The way it was reported, it clearly stated "he said," but clearly his word means nothing to the VAWA (radical feminist) trained police and subsequently that bias is reflected in the news story. Each step of the legal process denies a little bit more of the man's legal rights and due process until police, prosecutors and judges are little more than an unholy trinity of unconstitutional tyranny.
It varies state to state, but mandatory arrest, primary aggressor or dominant aggressor, no drop policy, etc., are all code words for arrest and prosecute the man. He's bigger arrest him no matter what a woman does. He's a member of the Patriarchy according to the radical feminist ideology of VAWA so he's automatically and oppressor of women by the fact he's male. Prosecutors and police are both trained to ignore facts in evidence and go with radical feminist ideology in these cases. They also destroy and or manufacture evidence to suit the hateful gender profiling of VAWA. The process gets statistics for the taxpayer funded, d.v. industry (hate movement) to get more money to arrest more men, to get more statistics to get more money... ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Crine data is very unreliable because of the aforementioned biases. The difference between scholarly peer reviewed data and the crimes statistics gathered by the taxpayer funded, radical feminist trained domestic violence industry is glaring and should be a red flag for any objective individual.
Wake up and smell the corruption in the taxpayer funded domestic violence industry.
Ray: The report does *not* say the woman initiated the assault. It says that the accused told officers she started it, which is not at all the same thing.
I take it you dont know what nonreciprocal means Ray
"...the woman's injury occurred when she became upset with him and 'grabbed him.'"
According to the above reporting the woman initiated the assault.
That would fit the modus operandi for most domestic violence, according to this CDC study,
"In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women."
http://tinyurl.com/3xaejd
I guess it's too much to expect that the Violence Against Women Act (radical feminist) trained Marshall police hold women as equally responsible/accountable for their domestic violence behavior as men.
I did look it up how do you go to see that
Okay, this guy has been given waaaay too many chances. Check out case.net; he's been tying up our court system for years. I would like to see my tax paying dollars finally go into putting him away for many, many years. No more suspended execution of sentence or probation. This guy obviously requires some serious time.
$5000 seems a little low for a violent felony