Police said the alleged attack left a worker with severe burns and other injuries after he fell to the ground.
POINSETT COUNTY, Ark. — A $100 dispute over a moped has become part of a first-degree battery case after police said a Trumann recycling worker burned a co-worker with a metal-cutting blowtorch.
The charge against Joshua Warren Campbell, 37, followed an investigation into a March 23 incident at Metal Man Recycling. Police said Campbell used the torch on the victim’s back while both men were working. The victim suffered second- and third-degree burns, needed a skin graft and also sustained a fractured rib and leg bruising. A judge found probable cause for Campbell’s arrest, and he later posted $10,000 bond after being booked into the Poinsett County Detention Center.
The money dispute surfaced in a recording described in the police affidavit. Detective Garrett Woods wrote that Campbell could be heard saying the injured worker owed another employee’s father $100 for a moped. The reports do not say whether that debt was proven, denied or recorded in any written agreement. They also do not say whether the father, the other employee or the victim had tried to resolve the matter before the workday turned violent. What police did say is that the alleged debt became part of Campbell’s own explanation after the burning.
The case stands out because the alleged motive was not tied to a large theft, an armed robbery or a long public feud. Investigators described a small private dispute that ended with a severe burn injury inside a workplace. The affidavit said the victim told police he had learned Campbell and another employee had discussed “jumping” him before the alleged assault. That statement gave investigators reason to look beyond a sudden accident involving work equipment. It also placed the alleged moped debt in a broader workplace conflict involving more than one employee.
The victim’s injuries were detailed in the probable cause account. Police said Campbell used a blowtorch meant to cut metal and pointed it at the man’s back. The flame caused serious burns. The victim then went to the ground, where he suffered a fractured rib and bruising. The burns required surgery and a skin graft, which made the medical evidence a central part of the case. Public reports did not name the victim or describe his current condition, and they did not say whether he has returned to work since the March incident.
A witness added an immediate account of the scene. He told Woods that when he saw the victim on the floor, he could see burns on the man’s back and thought he was dead. The witness also provided the video that investigators cited in the affidavit. Police said that recording included Campbell’s comments about the moped debt and his regret after the alleged attack. Woods wrote that Campbell said he “felt bad for it” and “wished it was the other way around.” The affidavit also quoted Campbell saying the victim did not deserve that kind of “karma.”
Those statements could become important as the case moves through court because intent is often contested in assault and battery cases. A defense could argue about accident, context or the meaning of recorded comments. Prosecutors could argue that the remarks show awareness and responsibility. At this stage, the affidavit only establishes probable cause, not guilt. Campbell has not been convicted, and the public reports reviewed did not show a plea or a next court date. The video has been described by police but not presented publicly in full.
The workplace location may also matter. Metal Man Recycling is the business where Campbell and the victim were working when the incident occurred, according to investigators. A metal-cutting blowtorch would be expected in some recycling or scrap operations, but police said the tool was used against a person rather than for the job. Reports did not say whether the company had security cameras, whether managers witnessed the incident or whether the torch was taken into evidence. No public statement from the business was included in the reports reviewed.
Campbell’s path through the jail system began April 20, about four weeks after the alleged burning. Reports said a judge had found probable cause the previous week or at the time of arrest, and Campbell was booked on one count of first-degree battery. He later posted a $10,000 bond and was released. The public timeline suggests investigators spent the weeks after the incident collecting interviews, medical details and the witness recording before the arrest moved forward. The timing also means the victim’s treatment began before the criminal case became public.
First-degree battery is a serious violent charge in Arkansas, and the court process may require prosecutors to show how the injury happened, what Campbell intended and how the blowtorch was used. The medical records could show the severity of the burns and the need for grafting. Witness testimony could explain the scene and any workplace conflict. The recording could be used to connect Campbell to the alleged motive. The defense may seek to review the full video, question witnesses and challenge parts of the affidavit.
The reports leave several people unnamed. The victim has not been publicly identified. The other employee connected to the moped debt has not been named. The father who was allegedly owed money has not been named. Police also have not said whether that employee was working nearby when the burning happened. Those omissions are common early in criminal cases, but they leave the public record focused mainly on Campbell, the victim’s injuries, the workplace and the comments described in the recording.
The case has moved into the court system with Campbell out on bond and the charge pending. The next milestone will be the appearance of a court date or filing that shows how prosecutors plan to use the affidavit, medical records and witness video tied to the March 23 incident.
Author note: Last updated May 20, 2026.