That's unfortunate, but I appreciate your input and I'll pass on the information. Doesn't the state have a duty to prosecute someone when sufficient evidence is presented up front, or at least probable cause though? There's a ton of misleading and ambiguous information on the Web, but I've seen quite a few pages that seem to suggest that one would have a cause of action under these circumstances. Would it make a difference or be a requirement if the recipient of the original domestic violence (which was ignored) was later prosecuted for a domestic violence himself by the ex who initially attacked him? That would seem to be a blatant display of selectiveness, going after one but not the other.

