Last updated on 2014.03.24
Suspended Department of Criminal Investigation agent Mark Black and aggrieved ex-wife Patricia Black had a day in court yesterday. Patricia Black filed for a protection order against her ex last month, accusing him of violent, threatening behavior. Mark Black admits to certain violent behavior against his ex, but whimpers that she made him feel bad, too.
Mark Black is also whimpering about his job. The Aberdeen-based agent is on administrative leave from the DCI. Under a protection order, Black could not carry a gun... although I suggest that an investigator wouldn't need a gun to review documents and interrogate suspects.
Judge Eugene Dobberpuhl is trying to do Mark Black a favor: the judge yesterday recommended that the parties work out a mutual restraining order, which would not trigger the federal prohibition on Mark Black's carrying a gun. But pistol-packing may be a moot point for keeping his DCI job:
Mark Black testified Thursday that he received a letter from the state telling him he’s on administrative leave with “intent to terminate.” In other words, he could be fired. The letter, Mark Black said, expresses concerns that he committed a domestic act of violence and violated two state policies.
...Marshall Loverin, Patricia Black’s attorney, said one stipulation should be that Mark Black get some type of anger management assessment or treatment.
Mark Black, though, said his concern with that potential requirement is that its findings could give the state a reason to fire him [Scott Waltman, "Attorneys Will Seek Compromise in DCI Agent Protection Order Case," Aberdeen American News, 2014.03.14].
Mark Black doesn't want to have to get treatment for violent tendencies that put his job at risk, because he thinks that treatment could put his job at risk. Far be it from me to presume to understand the mind of our Attorney General, but if I were managing the DCI and I had an agent with issues affecting his performance, and that agent said, "You know what? I'm going to agree to get treatment for those issues so I can do my job better," I might be more inclined to let that agent keep his job.
Of course, seeking treatment wouldn't change the fact that, right now, those issues remain unresolved and potentially hazardous to co-workers and the public. It also wouldn't change the violation of two state policies, which by themselves could be reasons for termination.
Patricia and Mark Black will have another day in court. Judge Dobberpuhl has given the Blacks ten days to work out their differences. That's ten days more consideration than Agent Black may deserve.
The people Mark Black has terrorized do not get a second chance. He does because of politics and that is not fair for the rest of the law abiding public. Dude needs to seek help and find other employment away from the taxpayer expense.
I every time spent my half an hour to read this webpage's posts daily along with a mug of coffee.
It seems like a lot of people involved in various types of law enforcement seem to think they are above the law and have a tendency to think "do as I say, not as I do." I was married to a cop for 20 years and have personally known many cops in different law enforcement agencies. Just listening to them in their BS sessions tells a lot. I'm not saying all law enforcement thinks that way, but the ones that have that general type of mentality do. I feel Black should be fired, because in his line of work he should know better.
No, this thing about being more lenient; giving him another chance is entirely bogus. Do they seriously expect this couple to sit down together and work something out?! That's complete and total crap.
This echoes domestic violence a few decades ago. Cops used to come to the house where the man answered the door with a hank of her hair tangled up in his fist. The cop, male, urged the man to calm down. He might even bring the perp to his car to commiserate and de-escalate.
In the meantime, the other cop talks to the woman, who may have a bloody nose, bruises, and other marks. He tells her that it probably wasn't really that bad. Doesn't she want to rethink her complaint? She doesn't really want to get him in trouble, does she? After all, he's going to promise not to do it again.
She knows that's all baloney. She knows she's really going to be in danger from him now because she sought help from law enforcement. Even worse, it's clear that law enforcement is Not on her side. She is vulnerable and defenseless.
None of that is exaggeration folks. Those kinds of situations were routine years ago. It appears that sometimes they still are.
BTW, violence against the woman hits a much higher level once she has reported him. She has made his shame public. If she should decide to leave him, the likelihood that he will MURDER her goes up by 75%!
Seventy-five percent!!! That is huge. Huge. This is not a game, not a simple matter of "working it out."
Last year was a bad one for murdered women in MN. There were 4, each murdered by a boyfriend/fiance/husband she was breaking up with. Each case of domestic violence needs to be seen as the life and death matter that it is.
Ms. Geelsdottir/ will probably hate this but I could not agree with her more. No conditions, no puppies with bags on heads, no nothing. I support Ms. Geelsdottir/ entire on this one.
Thanks Grudz. I don't mind in the least when you agree with me. In fact, I like it.
A non-solution solution for Mr. Black, that should work well, a slap on the wrist if better nothing, right? BULL!
This guy is likely to harm his wife again, and if given his gun and badge will likely one day unload on somebody he stops for speeding.
Anger management classes are good, jail time is better, and to keep this guy out of law enforcement is better.
In his position, he needs to be held to a higher standard. How is the public to trust the power that he has been given, especially when it comes to upholding the law. Would a teacher that was flirtatious with students be allowed to continue teaching if complaints were filed, and the evidence supported the claims? If he is unable to control himself at home, what is it to say he cannot control himself while on duty?
Teachers, police, and other highly visible public employees face similar higher expectations. Plus, law enforcement officers are entrusted with the state's power to use deadly force. Law enforcement officers must thus show all the more restraint of their anger and violent impulses.
This court reminds me of Condoleeza Rice,standing with the Augusr,2011 PDB in her hand,the one that said terrorists planned to hijack planes and fly them into buildings in the US,and having her say,who knew they would do this. Correct me if I'm wrong,dummy,but if anyone in the Bush admin. could read any of the dozens of warnings before 9-11,you could have possibly prevented 9-11 from happening. I can hear the court say something similar if this agent commits more violence towards his ex.
Good points,Joe K,but this guy has already gotten past the flirtatious stage and into actual violence. It can only escalate from here,I'm guessing.
Mike, I agree - that is why I wonder what the judge presiding over this is thinking in this case. He should have no consideration in the case to the job he holds. If he committed those acts, he should have to answer to them.
Myself, as a volunteer firefighter - if I was to go on a arson spree and be caught, would a judge offer for me an out to answer to my actions and keep my position on the fire dept? No, I would have to own up to the offenses that I did. I wouldn't have a chance to make amends with the parties that were affected, I would be charged with the appropriate offenses - and have to face those in court. I would sure as hell be kicked off of being a member of the fire dept.
We have a law enforcement officer that has shown to be a loose cannon. Wouldn't it be in the public's best interest to remove him before he becomes a liability to the agency that he represents?
The problem with most of our DCI agents is they are very young and inexperienced. However, this is not the case with agent Black. I have to believe agent Black knew what he was doing could get ugly. That said, I've always felt it takes two. I don't believe his wife is innocent in all of this, but that does NOT give Black the right to abuse his wife in anyway, shape or form. As for Black's professional record and past cases. I feel Marty Jackley is just as guilty if not more. Black receives his orders from the upper brass, just like everyone else. It seems to me that Black is being crapped on by Jackley and others in Pierre. This shouldn't shock anyone. Has anyone every heard Marty admit to anything other than flattering himself? I haven't. Let's not forget good old Marty is a politician first and an Attorney General second. He also has his eye's on the prize in Pierre when another so called king of the people Dauugard leaves office. So anything other than complete denial would dash any hopes of winning an election. I feel like Pierre is as broken as DC. There is just no integrity left there anymore. As for the judge making this deal. I have to agree with most of the comments. If this were just your average Joe, there would be no deal, we all know this, the judge knows it. But this is just another in the long history of good deals being made to someone in position of power to help a fellow in the club. Take a close look at some of these agents names. What you'll find is a lot of familiar names. Son's of former and current law enforcement officials, from DCI and FBI, so power is always where they want it to be and never leaves. We used to be somewhat immune to this type of behavior here in SD. I guess it has finally gotten here, and here to stay.
Having waded through this train wreck and read all of the comments, I am convinced that we need to cut down on the number of police procedural shows on television. The problem is that now everyone seems think they are a detective. The level of ignorance displayed here would be appalling, if it wasn't so completely ludicrous. At least the website doesn't even pretend to be adhering to any standard of ethical journalistic practices. Based on the known facts in the case, the "conclusions" spouted concerning this matter have wandered far afield. Most of the noncritical thinking here would be laughed out of court after the lawyer and investigators received a sound butt chewing. In the real world, no one would even entertain these flight of fancy. There are a lot of personal biases and grudges concerning law enforcement and domestic violence issues (which are not supported by the facts in play in this case) that are being projected onto the parties involved. The "all cops are bad" arguments can simply be dismissed as not worthy of consideration. The fevered musing about domestic violence investigations might be fun in a Grade Z Lifetime Channel movies, but are not supported by facts or research - they simply display either a complete lack of any actual knowledge or insight into the dynamics of domestic violence matters. I know you are all having fun with your kangaroo court, unfortunately it is coming at the expense of real people dealing with what is probably a sad situation all the way around. And when this whole matter is tossed by the judge, as it probably will be, I wonder if any of you will have the integrity to admit that you got it wrong?
Great... ["Common Sense Citizen" doesn't reply to e-mails. Until he does, he doesn't get to comment.]
Although Caheidleberger does not want to hear the truth and wants to eliminate my post, but those of you that want to hear the truth here it is....
Great Post Jeff and I have to agree with you…. And if any of these so called “wanna be legal experts” and “domestic violence advocates” on this website have kept up on their court proceedings, they would see that they were wrong… The ex-wife would not sign a mutual agreement to stay away from each other and therefore ended up in court again after the 10 day period. The judge therefore ruled and found there was no reason for the TPO and dismissed it. The judge even stated there was no evidence domestic violence occurred. Black had no contact with his ex-wife for more than four months and yet she feels she needs to file a protection order; yet she won’t sign an agreement to stay away from her ex-husband… it not only shows that she is nothing but a bitter ex-wife pouting about the fact that her ex-husband has moved on, but also that she is mad and revengeful because she is being investigated for illegally using Black’s credit card and charging on it after the divorce. She clearly has abused our legal system and has made a mockery of the system for those that truly need it. Shame on her and the ones that support that type of activity….
[As I have said to CSS by e-mail, I don't mind opposing viewpoints. I just want us all to speak on an equal footing, using real names, and mutually trusting each other. Now that CSS has responded to my e-mail, CSS's post stays. But the evidence on the record indicates much more "pouting" and volatility from the ex-husband than from the ex-wife.]
You will see it your way and others will see it another way. You clearly have a hatred toward Black for whatever reason and you are obviously a one-sided journalists/blogger that does not try to see it from both sides.
@Jeff-since when has any judge been infallible or without prejudices or personal animosities towards one party or the other? You base your whole foolish post on what you have read on this site and determined Black is innocent because commenters here aren't trained detectives. Absolutely brilliant,Sherlock. You are positive he is innocent and yet you provided no evidence or links to evidence that says he is innocent. If only the court of public opinion had the power to punish wife beaters.
Please don't play relativism with me, CSC. I see every side... and I can tell which side is right and which side is not so right.
I'm curious about what, other than rumor, personal bias and innuendo, CSC and Jeff are basing their conclusions and demeaning comments on.
Thank you Deb and Mike for just proving my point about the perils of amateur detecting. Since I never said the LEO in question was innocent, you have once again jumped to a conclusion/accusation totally unsupported by the known facts. This little witch hunt started up based solely on the facts presented by one side in the case - sort of like letting the jury deliberate with only the prosecution's case having been presented. By the way Mike, it is the responsibility of the accuser to prove their case in a real court. Deb, since you have been trafficking in bias, rumor and innuendo, I found your peevish response somewhat laughable. Your DV scenario was based the theory that female "victims" never lie and all men are in collusion. It does not reflect reality and reveals a woeful ignorance of what really happens in these situations. Of course now that it appears your desired outcome wasn't achieved, the ploy is to attack the courts for letting down the "victim" without ever bother to consider, let alone accept, that this was probably the logical outcome for this set of facts. You ridicule me for basing my observations in this matter on the known, public facts in this case - well, would you please enlighten me on what special or secret set of facts you are privy to that allowed you to convict in your little star chamber? To causally call the husband a "wife beater" based on the known facts in this case is outrageous and you should be ashamed of yourself - and pray that there isn't a libel suit in your future.
Jeff, you're talking big, but you have nothing to back it up. Deb rightfully points out that you are offering no new evidence to this discussion. I have cited real evidence, both parties' own words.
Point out where I accused Black of being a wife beater! Try to get one thing right,will you. Show me the direct quote where I accused Black of beating his ex-wife. I don't have to live up to anyone's journalistic standards,especially not yours-whoever or whatever you are. Be very careful of insinuating libel.
The Joe, Jeff and Common Sense commenting here all sound like the same person.
Cory has provided solid reporting on Black and subsequent court actions with facts. If these guys don't like the way he reported doesn't mean the events didn't occur as they did.
Nobody on blogs has to pretend to be tv detectives or CSI specialist, all we have to do is read the facts and draw our conclusions and commets.
Deb, don't be intimidated by any faux threat of libel, again these guys don't like your comments so they put of the bully suit and threaten you.
Thanks Roger, I'm not intimidated. Apparently that guy has very strong feelings about domestic violence, but not enough to read all the previous posts. Otherwise he would know that I am an expert in DV.
Statistically and anecdotally, women and girls are most likely to be murdered by a male they have some type of relationship with. The rate is high, though I can't quote the exact percentage.
One of the salient points in this discussion is why women sometimes drop charges.
Threats.
Specifically there are three common threats the male makes to keep her from leaving or filing charges: His own suicide or her murder, or both. These threats are often carried out. Right now the news is covering the murder trial of South African Olympian Oscar Pistorious (sic). He has admitted to killing his girlfriend. The likelihood that he threatened her is sky high, if it was deliberate murder.
Another common threat is harm to the children. I don't know if there were children in the Black relationship, but that is an extremely powerful and effective threat. Again, it is another one that is carried out. We hear horrific stories about entire families murdered. Then he suicides. Other times he only murders the children because his goal is to make her suffer.
It's all horrendous. Because the overwhelming percentage of perpetrators are male, more than 90%, I'll always give the benefit of the doubt to the woman. It just makes sense. That's why police first look to male relationships for the murderer. It's simple math.
Sigh...Deb, I've read your posts. If you pass for an expert, there must be a very low standard. Your bias is appalling. Studies show that women assault men at roughly the same rate as women do men. Thus is one of the most under reported crimes there is. Granted, women tend to be more frequently injured overall, but women are also more likely to use something other than their fists (knives, hot oil, etc) so there is a significant amount of severe injury. Your earlier scenario was simply silly. Modern DVD law and training came about as the need to deal with the issue of the victim frequently going back to and/or defending the attacker. Mandating arrest in most current laws is not because cops weren't doing their jobs and covering for the attacker, it was because women often refused to press charges. If you don't recognize this, then you are really bad at your professed profession - and would your animus possibly be based on the LEO's involvement in a prior case involving social workers? Btw, police always look at immediate family members in a homicide investigation. Your bias against men really appears to be coloring whatever professional judgement you may have.
Roger, I've never met Joe or CSS, but thanks for adding to the debate with a meaningless cheapshot.
Mikey, once you've stopped hyperventilating, refresh your memory by looking at your lament about the court of public opinion not having the power to not punish wife beaters. Thanks you for your pro lunch mob vote, but you should get that short term memory problem checked out.
Cory - my whole point has been that the bunch of you have gone off the rails with conjecture and wild extrapolation. Based on the known facts there wasn't a case. There was no where near enough evidence to meet any burden of proof in the Americaln
Well said Jeff….
From what I have seen of Judge Dobberpuhl, he is known to be a fair individual with his rulings and in his past history of cases has shown to be pro-women and children, therefore the comment that he has made an error in judgment is erroneous. The information that I have presented is backed up in the court transcripts and documents. If you look at the documents filed by the obviously now the “not so called victim”, P. Black, the TPO was filed the day after she was questioned by law enforcement for the allegation of unauthorized use of M.Black’s credit card. That is just not coincidence, and leans toward the idea that she was pissed off that M.Black would no longer put up with her shenanigans and tantrums. In particularly, when trying to establish a mutual agreement, no settlement was established because P. Black repeatedly wanted M.Black to withdraw the alleged charges against her and M.Black refused. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out…..
Furthermore, in the transcript of Blacks case, he clearly explains what was meant by the things that were stated in the letter. And P. Black admitted on the stand to false imprisonment of M. Black. And again, M. Black had not contact with P.Black for over four months, but she then thinks and decides to file a protection order. Nowhere does it state, nor does P. Black state that M.Black beat her, as you would refer to him as a “wife beater”. It is just unfounded as Judge Dobberpuhl had stated as well. Additionally, there were voice recordings presented by M.Black of P.Black trying to control him, his actions, the situation, and refusing to allow him to leave... M. Black did not “whine” or “pout” or show any sign of rage on the recording. He simply remained calm while P. Black continued to instigate and try to escalate the situation. So, I would check your facts and your half-assed investigative tools when commenting. Maybe in the future you should leave it to the professionals who actually know what they are doing.
All right. I'm done with Jeff/CS/etc.
See you Madizens over on the new post.
Jeff-are you on drugs?
...American legal system. When you began using adjectives like "whimper" to describe someones's testimony, he only thing you are citing is your own bias - unless of course you were in court and are providing a first hand description of a witnesses demeanor on the stand. Since you accuse me of talking big, what is it you're looking for, Sparky? I analyzed they known fact and gave you an assessment. Unlike you and your fellow travelers, I didn't make up a bunch of crap to prove an ideological point. Based on the known facts there were no acts of violence committed. If you dial down to a very expansive reading of the definitions concerning unwarranted contact, then everybody was culpable to some degree. If CSS is correct, then the court agreed with my view.
Again these are human beings caught up in a miserable situation. Family law is a dirty, tragic business. You have not so successfully tried to conflate a whole grab bag of your personal issues concerning hatred of men and loathing of law enforcement into quite the little cesspool. Unless of course you have direct personal knowledge of this case or it's participants and are not being candid about your involvement. You've had a lot fun running around the ring in your circus tent, but this type of foolishness would get you laughed out of any court or police agency in the country. Apparently, Cory, you can't always tell which side is right. Roger, you all pretend to be a detective, then get offended when called on it and claim that's not what you're doing. I'm not trying to bully anyone, but lack of foundation for the serious accusations zinging around here in a public forum is breathtaking. You guys are most certainly entitled to your opinions and theories, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I ask again, what secret set of facts. Also, what have I stated that is factually incorrect? Try to be a little more specific. Mike and Cory, relax - you certainly don't have to worry about living up to any journalistic standard
I was right. South Dakota beans sure do work up a blow.
Of course when you can't deal with the facts, it is time to pick up your toys and run home, right Deb? Mikey, do you have anything meaningful to add? This is all really bad Alinsky tactics. I'll type this slowly so you can understand. Tell me where I am factually incorrect. Thank you, CSC for adding some relevant facts to the party.
Out of curiosity, Deb, is this how you conduct yourself as a professional? Do you truly believe a women/victims never lie in these cases? If so, please stay away from my cases. I don't need that kind of professional help.
Yes, Jeff I am correct... They will be able to read it in the paper tomorrow...
Mikey, your score is still perfect. You have got absolutely nothing right so far. I'm not from South Dakota. You really should learn to stick with the facts you know. And you should stay off the blow. That is probably what's clouding your deductive reasoning skills
Good to hear Citizen. Sadly, for many here the collision of reality and pet delusion will be ignored. I am sure we next see some posts about the big conspiracy and coverup. It will be the same cabal behind Dallas, 9/11 and Malaysian Airlines flight 370 (they are pernicious and far reaching, you know)...
Yikes
Jeff-you sound like a moron. You sound like an uneducated moron. You sound like a butt-hurt troll moron. Once again I ask-show me where I said you are from South Dakota,moron sounding like person? I'll aswer for you,since you consistently fail this quiz. I did not say you were from South Dakota. Just like I didn't accuse Black of being a wife beater. And for the record you ACCUSED me of being pro-lunch so watch out for a libel suit,tool.
Wow, Jeff, how far can you stray from the issue at hand? For what it's worth, please note this blog considers Lee Harvey Oswald a lone gunman, 9/11 the work of al-Qaeda, and Flight 370 not as interesting as the tragedy-fear-ADHD media needs it to be.
And the pet issue isn't worth the sturm and drang some activists dedicate to it. Domestic abuse is much more important.
(And Alinsky? You just lump Limbaugh memes into any verbal assault, don't you? I've read Alinsky and come away unimpressed. The people who shout Alinksy to denigrate their opponents are true Alinskyites.)
Transcript, CSC? Let's see that document. You have my e-mail address; share so we all can see.
Just because your not good at Alisnky doesn't mean mean you haven't been trying.
Mike, if you are back on your meds, maybe we can talk. How exactly would you characterize the the last line of your 3/24 post at 15:10 as anything other than an assertion that the DCI Agent you've been spewing about is a wife beater? And then there is the 19:11 post on the 15th where you asserted he had gone past the "flirtatious stage into actual violence,". Seriously dude, you are either extremely intellectually dishonest or have the memory of a mealworm. Of course you will ignore the proof you demanded of me and just continue to bray...
All of you keep thundering you want more evidence, when the whole problem is that you refuse to confront what is in from of you? The name calling, Mikey, shows how bereft of any intellectual weapons you truly are. And the quasi homophobic references mark as a lousy progressive too. You are good at flinging feces at the crowd, though and I will match my CV against yours any day of the week.
Cory, I think you are a smart guy, and I can accept that you have a different ideological view of the world than I do. But this matter is not about politics - unless you are starting with certain assumptions about the law, law enforcement, womens' right, etc and then choose to filter everything through the resulting prism. The fundamental, rookie mistake that you and the others have made here is that you reached a conclusion, in this case that DCI agent must be guilty of something, and have filtered, to the point of excluding, all evidence that contradicts your desired outcome. This is the fountainhead from which all miscarriages of justice springs. Domestic violence is a serious issue, but not all victims are female, and some 'victims' lie - and not just in DV matters. There are some bad cops out there, but most cops are good people doing a tough job - which involves dealing individuals who are not having a good day and will not have warm fuzzy memories of law enforcement. You kept asking for me to produce evidence that the agent was innocent. My point was that I didn't have to because the known facts didn't meet the burden of proof that the agent was in the wrong. You initially jumped off based solely on the facts presented in documents file by one side, the ex wife. When rebuttal information was presented by the husband you rather cavalierly dismissed it, using pejorative descriptions of his testimony to minimize it. Apparently the court didn't see it the way you were hoping. This of course is then termed an error by the judge. A good investigator never gets too attached to his pet theory of the crime, because when the evidence demands a revision,you have go where the evidence leads you. If you don't, bad people get away with it and good people are unjustly punished. If you let bias, prejudice, ideology, or a severe case of the raging stupids (Mikey) get in the way, you will fail.
Honest debate should welcome opposing point of view. Our justice system is based on a clash of opposing advocates. Deb the "expert" turns into a frightened bunny and runs away when contradicted. Mike just runs out of ideas and goes into personal attack mode when he can't formulate any kind of argument.
What I have been waiting for is a simple response on where something I've said about this matter was factually incorrect. The conspiracy shot may have been cheap sarcasm, but then so was your calling my earlier post foolish.
I continue to live in eternal hope of finding rational, spirited debate
Wah,wah,wah! That bad mfi said South Dakota beans sure work up a blow and he personally hurt my widdle feelers. I'm not from South Dakota even though mfi's statement wasn't aimed at anyone it hurt my widdle feelers that these bad people don't agree Mark Black is the sweetest,most likable ex-DCI agent in the world and is just misunderstood by bad lunch-mobs.
For supposedly being interested in rational debate, you certainly rely on lots of personal insult in your own language, Jeff ("rookie mistake", "raging stupids"...).
You keep asking to be shown where you are factually incorrect. You appear to be relying on evidence that you haven't shared with us. Do you have a transcript of the hearing that you can share with us?
Again, the evidence I presented did come from one side, but on one important point, the physical aggression, it included the words of both parties. In addition, I have included evidence of aggressive, intimidating behavior from former agent Black's workplace, his interrogation techniques against the Mette children.
Cory Caheidelber, Deb Geelsdottir, both people with real names, both are professionals. Cory is a journalist, Deb is an expert on Domestic Violence, this is great team when it comes to the Black case.
To me or any logical and reasonable person, that equals credibility.
Cory, as soon as you snap a leash on Mikey, I'll take any complaints about insults seriously. Especially in light of the fact that you sling mud with the rest of them. By the way Mikey, you need to calm down - if mom learns you've been behaving this way, you will lose computer privileges again.
To he clear, Cory, I don't have any secret information. I am looking at the same set of facts you are. A fact you are unwilling or incapable of acknowledging. I have repeatedly pointed out that the known facts don't support the conclusions you are asserting. A conclusion that the judge also reached.
Roger. Saying you are an expert doesn't mean you are one. Blogging on the internet doesn't make you a journalist. They might be team, but they are a documented losing team on this case. Personal bias does not translate into a winning legal strategy.
The physical contact described in the proceedings does not rise to the level of domestic violence - as has been confirmed by the court. Still waiting for a debate....one sided demands for citation does not an argument make. You seem to be unable to tell me where I'm wrong.
Cory and Deb both have credentials and experience that make them experts in their respective fields, why is so hard for you to accept that? You probably aren't qualified to determine that. Because you have an opposing opinion does not lessen their credibility.
Geesh Jeff, talk about drivel, you would certainly know. Quite a feller you are defending. I guess in your book, "pushing and shoving" your wife around is just another day in paradise. I imagine if I were to do the same, I would end up in trouble and that trouble would be domestic violence. So why is your dudes case different than others, just because he is a cop or you are? I am just a person who thinks that justice should be equal, I know that is old fashioned, but what the hell, that is me.
If Black is as innocent as you claim Jeff, why did they fire his ass? I guess then he would have a case to bring against the State of South Dakota for that little issue. Maybe, we should just wait to see what develops. When he is reinstated, as this is the Lent, I will give my mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa . Until then, all is moot.
Roger, Roger, Roger... I have a bachelors degree in journalism, and have worked as a PIO. I have 8 years in the Army and 26 years in law enforcement (none of it in South Dakota). This also includes 8 years years investigating Color of Law and Hate Crimes violations - so I have plenty of experience in working with victims and investigating bad cops. My question is it so hard for you to accept that they are simply wrong in this case.
Speaking of drivel.... Jerry - if you truly believed in equal justice you would have also taken into consideration the timeline and actions of the ex-wife. This would give you a more nuanced picture of the situation than his blogger is attempting to paint. Going to some place other than this website would also allow you discern some of the factual errors that the Cory has slipped, intentional or unintentionally into his 'reporting.' For example the boat that was spray painted was awarded to the husband, not the wife, so he did not vandalize her property. But this doesn't fit the narrative being spun here. You are also confusing Criminal law, civil (family) law and employment law. These are all separate and distinct. Based on the complete inability of the hate cops crowd here to admit error, I am highly skeptical that you would actually give a mea culpa if this job issue ends up in court and the LEO wins....
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...Anybody can rattle off their education, experience and other credentials.
You see Jeff, Cory and Deb have real names and don't post anonymously and I have seen their credentials on Madville from time to time.
Your qualifications mean nothing to me if you hide behind anonymous names. I could say I'm the Pope on an internet blog and you couldn't disprove it.
So, why isn't Black a cop anymore?
Roger Roger Roger Roger. You ask for credentials and then ignore them. Now of course you want to question true identity. Are you telling me that Mike's last name is Iowa? How do I know that your last name is really Cornelius? How do I know that your true first name isn't Dick? This seems to be a requirement that is selectively applied. Of course now you want to simply infer that I'm a liar. You really have no honor. Pay attention and work on your reading skills. I touched on the employment issue in my previous past
So then, why is Black fired? If he is as pure as the driven snow Jeffrey, why is he fired? Miscarriage of justice? Wrongful termination? Which is it? You just do not fire a high profile cop like him without due cause and you know it. Blather and bloviate as much as you want, we all know the dude went down and that is that. Cry us a river, but don't rust my spurs.
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...Mike from Iowa has not professed to be any kind of an expert.
Listen or read clearly, anybody can say whatever they want on the internet without question and make any claim they want about themselves. You have gone overboard in repeating your professionalism and denying Deb and Cory their's with trite and snide comments.
I did read your qualifications and experiences, but you lack the honor and the integrity and hide behind the shadows of the internet. If I had your qualifications and experiences I'd be proud to put my name in front of them.
You sir, have a perverse agenda by consistently supporting Black and refusing to acknowledge the level of violence Black committed. Has it even occurred to you that when you push or shove a woman, it may not cause physical damage, but it certainly causes fear and mental anguish.
Who is the larger one, Mr. Black or Mrs. Black? It matters.
Since you prefer to remain anonymous, Mr. Black, you have no credibility with me.
A half clever rascal that Mr. Black is. Roger done smoked him out, must have been an old Indian trick. Well done Roger C, well done indeed.
Kola Jerry,
Not necessarily old Indian trick, when somebody becomes as defensive and aggressive as Mr. Black has become, he will eventually out himself or reveal his true agenda.
Just keep them talking and explaining and they in one way or another reduce all their options and their true identity will come out.