Records: Judge denied PPO against man who allegedly assaulted ex-girlfriend

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

KALAMAZOO, Mich. — FOX 17 is digging into the background of Adam David Shigwadja.

The 18-year-old is wanted for felonious assault. Kalamazoo Public Safety said he broke into an ex-girlfriend’s home, assaulted her, and set a fire in her bedroom this morning. This occurred on the 300 block of Prospect.

Court records show that a judge denied a personal protection order (PPO) request in Feb. 2013. A female made the request. It’s not clear yet if this is the same female victim in the Prospect incident.

In the document, Judge Alexander Lipsey indicated that Shigwadja “has not committed two or more acts of willful, unconsented contact.”

Judge Lipsey also indicated that “the petition lacks sufficient basis to clearly indicate immediate or irreparable injury, loss, or damage.”

Police said the victim in the Prospect assault is in critical condition.

Stay with FOX 17 for updates on this incident on FOX 17 News at 5 and 6.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

5 comments

  • Jamoka

    Leave it up to our Courts failing our women and children once again. This Judge needs to be voted out…we must start paying attention to Judges like this…I bet he has no conscience…until it is his daughter, sister, friend,….Sickening just sickening.

  • ajc1973

    We have the luxury of hindsight but PPOS have prerequisites for a reason, the laws were written so to give people peice of mind but also not be abused to limit a person their right of movement because someone was pissy in a break up, there has to be evidence that a person feels they are in danger. there are also other prerequisites in play there has to be 2 or more acts of willful unconsented contact. you people are blaming the judge for following the law, perhaps you should look at the people you voted in that wrote the laws and have them change them.. but be prepared for the consequences of limiting people the right to movement based on a teenager’s anger. at a boy.

    I remember growing up in indiana there was a judge that didnt follow the law, based it on emotion, had a ppo against a boy, his ex was upset that he broke up with her, made up an attack, filed a ppo. 1000 feet,(except at school) well it turned out next girl friend, lived 800 feet away, he was arrested for violating his PPO, because he went to pick the girl up for prom.. guess who called the cops?

    it took several court cases to finally fight getting the ppo removed.. all because of a jealous girl..

    Judges should follow the law as written, and shouldnt be blamed after the fact for the actions of a deranged young man, that ppo wouldnt have stopped him, would have just given another charge to be filed when he attempted to kill that girl..