It seems that a lot of people here are confusing being charged with being guilty. From what we can see, it appears as if the girls went down (hee hee) and he proceeded to beat them - from that standpoint he was correctly charged. However, due to the counter we can't see what happens once the girls go down (hee hee). For all we know they are kicking, biting, etc and still pose a threat - and would logically be an even bigger threat if allowed to get back on their feet.
Since it is possible the first scenario is how it went down, the police had an obligation to charge him. If scenario 2 is actually the case, he will hopefully be exonerated or have the charges reduced. In any event, a good lawyer will press the prosecution to prove the
mens rea, or criminal intent, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The article says he was additionally charged with criminal possession of a weapon - which is hopefully not in reference to the pole he grabbed. As a convicted felon it is unlawful for him to be in possession of a firearm, so if he was also carrying a gun then he is truly fucked.
