Plowman and Black On Violence Against Women

By Loudoun Insider

First we have the not very surprising news that Loudoun Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Plowman has cleared fellow LCRC endorsee School Board candidate Kevin Kuesters of spousal assault.  The woman had multiple bruises, but Plowman says his fellow local GOP Good Ole Boy is cleared.  Victims often recant due to familial and other pressures and prosecutors continue with cases regardless.  But Kuesters gets his pass before his election.  Nice to be a part of the club, isn’t it?

Then we have a hard hitting video put up on YouTube by the Shawn Mitchell campaign with Dick Black talking about how you just can’t rape a spouse since “she’s in a nightie”.  Unbelievable.  Don’t forget, Plowman was one of the first to jump out front to endorse Dick Black for Senate.  Yes, your Commonwealth’s Attorney endorsed a fellow local politician and attorney who cannot comprehend the concept of spousal rape.  I don’t see how any woman in Loudoun County can even think of voting for Jim Plowman or Dick Black.

She’s In A Nightie, with Dick Black:


Comments

  • Hillsboro says:

    It’s a stretch to blame Plowman for this, and a hell of a stretch to try to tie this to Black.

    I’m sure the Weintraub’s are scheming how to leverage this case to gain attention for their outrage du jour.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Plowman should have recused himself from this case since he is so involved with the LCRC, who endorsed Kuesters, who is also close with LCRC candidate Shawn Williams. It’s too clubby.

    And Plowman came out early to endorse Dick Black. He deserves to wear that around his neck. The video is absolutely ridiculous.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    Wow. Another hard hitting video from Shawn Mitchell that doesn’t say a thing about how he is going to put virginians back to work, or what he is going to do to fix our transportation problems.

    I watched the video, and it doesn’t say what you claim it says, LI. I didn’t hear anything about picking out a nightie together. I heard him mention the wife wering a nightie to bed (but maybe your wife doesn’t wear one).

    I did hear Dick say that he doesn’t see how you could get a conviction on this, most likely referring to the difficulty of proving a case of spousal rape in a court of law. Of course it is hard to figure out the context of his comments from 15 seconds of a grainy video where the audio doesn’t quite match up with the video.

    What’s more interesting is that the bill Mitchell refers to, HB 488 in 2002, passed the House of Delegates by a vote of 93 to 3, and Dick Black voted for it.

    Oh, wait. Maybe we weren’t supposed to know that part of the story. I guess we were only supposed to hear the spooky music in the video and conclude that Dick Black is some wacky extremist that we shouldn’t vote for.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Here’s exactly what it says, LGer:

    “I do not know how on earth you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape where they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, choosing a nightie, and so forth; there’s no injury, there’s no separation, or anything”

    Choosing a nightie is clearly part of the husband-wife discussion as a joint effort. My wife chooses her own nighties for your information. This is creepy.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    Pick your ears, LI! He say’s “she’s in a nightie.” Listen to the grainy audio a few more times and you’ll hear what he says.

    So is that what you want to hang your hat on? You want to ignore the fact that he voted for the bill and quibble over the nightie comment?

    I know acknowledging the fact that he voted for the bill makes the smear a little difficult to keep going, but seriously…

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I think you may be right! It makes the whole thing no less ridiculous – I’ll annotate the post accordingly!

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I’m glad you’re so close to Dick Black and can interpret these things for me, where can I send other clips for translation? You’re a real Sherlock Holmes!

    I’m going to take LGOPer’s word for it, so here’s a revised transcription:

    “I do not know how on earth you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape where they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth; there’s no injury, there’s no separation, or anything”

    Yep, still pretty mind boggling when discussing spousal abuse and rape.

  • Lloyd says:

    I’m no fan of Black, but I don’t think you can throw Plowman under the bus for Black’s statements or the fact that the charges against Kuesters were dismissed. Like I said in my post below, this whole story is made up of so much speculation and supposition that it really turns my stomach, particularly when I see the man and his family dragged through the mud like this.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    And as I just stated below, the family entered the spotlight when the wife filed the charges against her political candidate husband, it did not happen out of thin air. Plowman should have recused himself from this case, and his dismissal of the charges a week before the election against his fellow ticket mate reeks.

    Boy, they sure moved fast on this one – where is that decision on the Speakman residency complaint? Plowman sent that one away but not this one.

  • Fred says:

    Agreed Lloyd. For this crowd, who cares if they’re dragged in the mud, as long as it plays into the anti-Black, anti-Plowman narrative for the end justifies the means. It’s disgusting.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    “I’m glad you’re so close to Dick Black and can interpret these things for me”

    It’s easy. It’s called using your ears.

    “Yep, still pretty mind boggling when discussing spousal abuse and rape”

    Exactly what is mind boggling about what he said? He says he doesn’t know how you get a conviction in this kind of case, and then lays out the exact type of scenario that would be brought up in a court of law by the defendant.

    - They’re married
    - They live together
    - They sleep in the same bed
    - She’s in a nightie (which would definitely be brought up by the defendant, because just about any rape case you have heard about has some discussion about what the woman was wearing)
    - There’s no injury
    - There’s no separation

    All facts that would be brought up in court by the defense.

    It’s not mind boggling at all. It sounds like a lawyer discussing the difficulty of making a case and getting a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt.

    What is truly mind boggling is continuing to ignore the truly salient point, which is Shawn Mitchell is criticizing Dick Black for voting FOR a bill that makes spousal rape a crime. Does that mean that Shawn Mitchell is AGAINST making spousal rape a crime?

  • David says:

    Let’s see: We have people arguing that a picture of the president with a bullet hole in his head is ambiguous in its meaning, we have people arguing that an image featuring rainbow-colored pools and smears of blood is not intended to be threatening to the LGBT community, and now we have someone arguing that it’s perfectly fine and normal for an elected official to advocate keeping marital rape legal.

    I would call what I just did “observation,” but okay.

  • TCJohnson says:

    So, what you are saying is “She was wearing a nightie” is a good defense against rape charges? Really?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    More Plowman playing favorites.

    Wexton is looking like a much better option with every passing day.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    By the way, I was at the parade last night and the woman that was screeching through Dick Black’s public address system may be outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    If these women wore burkhas they wouldn’t get raped! No wonder Dick is so close with the Wahabbi Islamists.

    Completely tone deaf. Keep digging, Loudoun GOPer.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    “So, what you are saying is “She was wearing a nightie” is a good defense against rape charges?”

    Nope. Not saying that. But a defense attorney would sure bring it up.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    “Keep digging, Loudoun GOPer.”

    Keep digging? Your whole smear is dependent on a falsehood. You are attacking Black for voting FOR a bill that makes spousal rape a crime.

  • Manny says:

    Hey, where is that annotation indicating that he actually voted for the bill you were trying to imply he voted against?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I’m attacking Dick Black for once again coming off as a creep and an embarrassment to Loudoun County. There’s no falsehood whatsoever. Continue your ranting …

  • David says:

    TC, what he was trying to say is that if a woman is your wife, she is sleeping in the same bed as you, and she doesn’t fight back hard enough to result in serious bodily injury to herself, she has legally consented to sex.

    What that bill did was remove “the provision that marital rape cannot occur unless the spouses were living apart or there was bodily injury caused by force or violence.”

    When it was reported out of committee 20-1, Black didn’t vote. After his floor speech he did vote for it, probably because he didn’t want a no vote on the record. That doesn’t change what he argued for on the floor, which in 2002 he probably didn’t think would ever be seen by voters.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    “I’m attacking Dick Black for once again coming off as a creep and an embarrassment to Loudoun County.”

    You’re attacking a man for playing devil’s advocate, making people think seriously about an issue while debating a law that will affect the lives of every Virginian. He’s not just jumping on the bandwagon for a “we’ll figure out what the bill says after we pass it,” attitude. He is not playing for sound bites to campaign on. He is actually taking his job seriously.

    But you can go ahead and jump on the Shawn, “I have no ideas, and I don’t want to tell you where I stand on anything because I am a big liberal,” Mitchell bandwagon. The man’s entire campaign has been about smearing Black. He’s apparently been cut off by DPVA as a loser, and has resorted to these last minute smears in the hopes that enough people will ignore the issues and vote for him.

  • Manny says:

    “… what he was trying to say is that if a woman is your wife, she is sleeping in the same bed as you, and she doesn’t fight back hard enough to result in serious bodily injury to herself, she has legally consented to sex.”

    I don’t think he’s saying that at all. I take his comments to mean, without injury, how are we going to prove it? Otherwise it would just be a he said/she said sort of thing.

  • David says:

    “Otherwise it would just be a he said/she said sort of thing.”

    And that means in practice that men can legally rape their wives with impunity, doesn’t it? You may be unaware of this, but rape is almost always a “he said/she said sort of thing.” Strangers and friends and relatives and classmates and roommates and co-workers and bosses, etc, accused of rape can and do claim that the accusation is false. Rape in those cases is still illegal.

    What Black was actually advocating is that there should be an exemption in the law just for men who happen to be married to their victims – not only that it’s hard to prove, which is always is – but that it shouldn’t even be illegal in the first place.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Hey Manny, what if the offender uses a gun or knife in a threatening manner but doesn’t leave a mark? No rape then? Especially if she’s in a nightie?

  • Manny says:

    “What Black was actually advocating is that there should be an exemption in the law just for men who happen to be married to their victims – not only that it’s hard to prove, which is always is – but that it shouldn’t even be illegal in the first place.”

    Really? When does he say this? All the clip shows is him saying he doesn’t know how a prosecutor could get a conviction without evidence. I don’t see why that is so controversial. If you have proof that he has said that spousal rape should be legal I’d like to see it and would promptly agree that he is a vile moron.

    LI, wherein did I say it wasn’t rape? I said that without evidence it would be hard to prove. Try sticking to what people have actually said. Or how about I play your game? If someone accuses their spouse of raping them, is the accused immediately guilty and should be sentence to jailtime? Should we not bother with that whole jury of your peers/ beyond a reasonable doubt thing?

  • Erik says:

    I think people are overlooking a crucial word here. I think the worst part of Black’s statement is the word “validly.” I would agree that, under the circumstances described, it would be difficult to get a conviction for spousal rape, as it would seem that the corroborating evidence (other than the testimony of the victim) could be missing. However, by questioning the validity of conviction under these circumstances certainly raises the question of whether Black honestly believes that spousal rape is even a possibility. That’s disgusting.

  • BlackOut says:

    LGOP, it’s obviously difficult for you to defend Dick Black’s ridiculous stance on marital rape without bring up the unspoken, controversial and hidden Biblical motive for Black’s view. Black’s view on this will never make any sense unless he comes clean and states his belief that wives are to be subservient to husbands. You know the belief, “always there for the sexual needs of husbands”. That would at least be an understood basis for Black’s support of protecting husbands against marital rape charges.

  • David says:

    Where does he say that? Well, the purpose of his floor speech was to convince his colleagues to vote against the bill to make marital rape illegal, which he ultimately failed to do. So yes, he is saying that marital rape shouldn’t be illegal.

  • Leesburg Dad says:

    Plowman endorsed Black one year ago, before knowing what other Republicans would be running, or even where the seat would be.

    And he plays politics with his office all the time.

    http://www.theplowmanrecord.com/politics.html

  • Manny says:

    “… the purpose of his floor speech was to convince his colleagues to vote against the bill to make marital rape illegal…”

    Again, he voted for the bill.

    Also, do you have a link to a transcript or video of his full floor speech? I would be happy to be proved wrong as to the full context of his comments but you can’t conclude that that was the purpose of his speech from the clip provided.

  • BlackOut says:

    Manny, evidence in rape cases is always an issue and challenge.

    Rape is rape! I sat on a jury that included charges of spousal rape. It was disgusting and the husband was clearly guilty. It baffles the mind to think LGOP think it would be ok to have Dick Black stick his head into that court room and say, “ah, it wasn’t rape she was the wife and Biblically required to submit to her husband’s needs”.

    BTW, during the voir dire, a woman was sent packing when she stated there was no way she could see a man being guilty of raping his wife. She was a nut job! Certainly the type that would vote for Black.

  • Independent Voter says:

    I’m no Dick Black, aka Plastic Fetus Guy, fan but how old is this video? He is much younger and look at those glasses!!!

    Mr. Mitchell: If you want my vote, address the issues we have in Loudoun County today and tell me specifically how you will make a difference. Do you have any plans if elected? Why should I vote for you on Nov. 8?

    You are grabbing at straws, and not very compelling ones at that.

  • Manny says:

    “Rape is rape!”
    I agree and have never said otherwise.

    “… Dick Black stick his head into that court room and say, “ah, it wasn’t rape she was the wife and Biblically required to submit to her husband’s needs”.”
    Can you cite anywhere he has indicated that this is the way he feels? I’m new to this area and not familiar with him before this year’s campaign, but I’m pretty sure if he said something like this it would have been highlighted by the opposition.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    And here comes BO, his oder preceding him into the the debate, to pile onto the latest smear tactic.

    If you guys are this deranged about Black, I imagine you are REALLY going to go over the edge when Black wins be a large margin next week.

    This latest smear is will be about as effective as the gun smear, or the abortion smear, or the birth control smear. Meaning zip, zilch, zero, nada.

    Micthell has no ideas, no positions he wants to discuss, and now no more money coming from DPVA. His campaign’s smears have become more and more outrageous and desperate, including sending out a mailer with a picture of a woman in a hospital gown with her legs in stirrups about to have an abortion.

    So keep saying Black opposed a bill he voted for if it makes you feel any better. BO, you keep having your little fantasies about what you think Black believes.

    The rest of us here in reality will look past the smears and the lies and vote for the best candidate next week – Dick Black.

  • David says:

    It’s on the video, GOP’er. He opposed the bill on the floor of the House, and did his best to convince others to vote against it. Voting for it in the end because he would have looked like a monster otherwise doesn’t change that.

  • BlackOut says:

    LGOP, you are ignoring my major point about Black’s belief in woman being subservient and required to submit to their husband’s wishes. I understand you’re using the only tactic you can in this situation, but when you are confronted with the essence of Black you call fowl and blame it on the messenger. That tactic doesn’t diminish or challenge a widely held view.

    As I said the only way Black can justify marital rape is by being open about his beliefs about subservient religious requirements. Otherwise he sounds like the fool he is in this video.

    Additionally, I happen to not be surprised at the way Black treats woman. I’ve seen his son-in-law verbally attack a woman in a parking lot. Luckily myself and another witness stepped in and assisted the woman. She was visibly shaken by the event. It must run in the family.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    “LGOP, you are ignoring my major point about Black’s belief in woman being subservient and required to submit to their husband’s wishes.”

    Oh, no. I didn’t ignore it. I addressed it right here (from above): “BO, you keep having your little fantasies about what you think Black believes.”

    And now you extend the smears to his extended family. Sure signs of desperation.

  • Manny says:

    “He opposed the bill on the floor of the House, and did his best to convince others to vote against it.”

    I’ll ask again one last time. Do you have any evidence of this? And referencing the clip is not sufficient as it is 15 seconds of a (presumably) much longer speech. What else did he say that is not captured in this brief clip?

  • BlackOut says:

    No smear LGOP, it occurred and I don’t think you want me to go into more detail. Collaborating witnesses are available.

    All one needs to do is go to the video tape and hear Dick Black in his own words. All anyone needs to do is listen to the other video and records of Dick Black to gain a basis for the wrath Black brings upon himself. There exists years of material on this guy.

    You did ignore my statement. And you just did it a second time. You must be very close to the Black campaign as you are following exactly the strategy that as been put down. Never say anything about the real Dick Black record, All that social conservative stuff will sink any re-election chance. Re-invent the image and hide the truth. Sorry pal, I am on to it.

  • BlackOut says:

    Manny, you are obviously new to your exploration into the mind of Dick Black. It’s not a stretch to make our conclusions based on this video segment. This isn’t the first recorded verbal or video evidence associated with the mind of Dick Black.

    Use the googler for a while and come back with your defense. Either you are truly looking for the truth or you are attempting to defend the indefensible. I am thinking you already have your mind made up, but I challenge you to prove me wrong.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    “You must be very close to the Black campaign as you are following exactly the strategy that as been put down.”

    You all keep saying that as if somehow, if I were close to the campaign, that would invalidate my opinion, or make your lies become the truth.

    You and Intriguing and LI must be very close to the Mitchell campaign, since you are following their exact strategy.

    Smear Black. Smear his family. Don’t talk about Mitchell’s lack of record, or experience, or ideas, or ethics.

    This thread has officially jumped the shark. I expect that from this point it will devolve into the usual litany of anti-Black rhetoric where all the Black haters re-hash their favorite reasons for hating Dick Black.

    Have fun with it guys. Not that it will make much difference at the polls next week, but you have fun notheless.

  • Manny says:

    No thanks, I’ve got better ways to waste my time than doing research on a politician whose district I don’t even live in. Besides, I’m not the one making accusations, so I’ve got nothing to prove. Usually the burden of proof rests on the accuser.

  • Intriguing says:

    Loudoun GOPer, thanks for the shout-out, and for the opportunity to express my views regarding Dick Black. My views are very simple, and can be summarized as follows:

    1) Dick Black’s best years in office are behind him. He lost his delegate seat year’s ago, when the electorate correctly determined that he was too extreme, ineffective, and out of touch with his constituents. He was removed from office for a reason.

    2) Dick Black has carpet-bagged his way into my jurisdiction, and I don’t respect people who do that. If it were a one-time move, that would be one thing. But as is a matter of fact, Dick Black has moved multiple times to multiple jurisdictions to run for office.

    3) Dick Black, in my opinion, has and is obfuscating his background on social issues, which, as a matter of fact, is where he has spent the bulk of his time as an elected official. I don’t regard his views to be mainstream.

    4) Dick Black has virtually no experience in the private sector. He has spent the majority of his career in the government. I don’t trust that he knows much about small businesses or entrepreneurship.

    So, Loudoun GOPer, you tell me where, in stating the above, I have smeared Dick Black, or his family? I don’t hate him, but I do think it’s beyond creepy to hear him say the words, “she’s in a Nightie.” Icky!!!

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Well said, Intriguing, I second those comments wholeheartedly!

  • David says:

    Manny, it is self-evident that he’s arguing against the bill. Please.

    I saw the entire floor speech once prior to 2005, and I don’t recall him saying anything other than that. The speech was about the reason he thought the House should defeat the bill. There wasn’t much more to it, other than him saying something about having participated in many rape trials so he knows it’s hard to prove, and his conclusion – vote no on it.

  • Independent Voter says:

    Right on Intriguing. I have no doubt the senators down in Richmond are salivating at the possibility of the Plastic Fetus Guy returning to their midst with another creapy gig.

    Hopefully, PFG will get his a$$ kicked again and will find it necessary to move to the far reaches of the state in order seek another office.

    I have to give the old dude credit, he can GOTV.

  • BlackOut says:

    Well with Intriguing’s very poignant comments I suspect LGOP will again disappear into Dick Black’s basement for nourishment and provisions. Hard to keep the guy around when he gets confronted with the situation on the ground AND actual video of Dick Black speaking about his passions.

    Come to think of it Dick Black does the same.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    Intriguing,

    Like I said in the last thread where we went through this. YAWN!

    All you have done, which is all you ever do, is repeat the exact same thing over and over and over again (and proved me right about the direction this thread would take BTW, thanks for that).

    I noticed you refrained from using the ‘Plastic Fetus Guy’ line this time in the attempt to sound reasonable. It was worth a good try, but for all your points, you are still presenting your opinion and attempting to pass it off as truth. Just because you think it, doesn’t make it true.

    You have your opinion on Dick Black. That’s great. Guess what? Most people don’t share your opinion. I know that is hard for you and the other Black haters to believe because you spend all your time in a little echo chamber of people who agree with you, but the truth is that most people agree with Dick Black and his positions, and they want to see him elected to the State Senate.

    Reading your posts is like listening to a broken record. It’s old and stale.

  • Loudoun GOPer says:

    Sorry to disappoint you, BO. At least Intriguing doesn’t run around using Black-Out as his (or her) moniker. You take your opinions and criticisms too close to the “obsessed-stalker” level to be taken seriously.

    But keep trying, really! Sometimes you are good for a laugh.

Leave Comment