Greensburg police: Fighting women wield hammer, screwdriver in fight |

Greensburg police: Fighting women wield hammer, screwdriver in fight

Joe Napsha

Two Greensburg women embroiled in a dispute allegedly used a hammer and screwdriver on each other’s head, resulting in a trip to separate hospitals and assault charges for both, Greensburg police said.

Frances L. Shaw, 56, and Crystal L. Shunk, 28, both of North Hamilton Avenue, were victim and assailant in the argument at their residence at 9:30 a.m. July 25, police said in the affidavit filed against them.

Shaw is accused of hitting Shunk on the back of her head with a hammer while Shunk was changing the locks on the residence in an effort to evict Shaw and her husband, police said. Shunk allegedly took the screwdriver she was using to change the locks and plunged it into the top of Shaw’s head, police said. Shunk allegedly retaliated by kicking Shaw in the stomach when she was lying on the ground.

Shaw was transported to Forbes Hospital in Monroeville where she received staples to close her head wound, police said. Shunk was transported to Excela Westmoreland Hospital in Greensburg for treatment, police said.

The women were arraigned Thursday on aggravated and simple assault charges before Greensburg District Judge Chris Flanigan and released on $20,000 unsecured bail. They face a preliminary hearing before Flanigan on Aug. 22.

Joe Napsha is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Joe at 724-836-5252, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.