South Dakota's AG reported hitting a deer Saturday night... but actually hit & killed a man!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The victim's glasses were found inside the car. I don't understand how anybody can defend rvnsbrg knowing that one simple fact.

Is it possible the force of the crash, combined with how quickly it probably happened, could make it so that he didn’t see the victim ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of misinformation in this thread. He stopped and called police immediately. A sheriff came to the scene. He was sober.

It was a tragic accident and he should not resign and have his life destroyed. The guy seems really nice and humble and went above and beyond in being as transparent as possible. He could have lawyered up and thrown both of his cell phones in a river.

You are an idiot. [Also, is "lawyered up" your version of sounding "streetwise"?] Ravnsborg is the f**king AG of the state, dumbass. He didn't need to "lawyer up" when he still believed he could talk (i.e., lie) his way out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The victim's glasses were found inside the car. I don't understand how anybody can defend rvnsbrg knowing that one simple fact.

MAGA!

[Anonymous]

He could have lawyered up and thrown both of his cell phones in a river.

Republican dimwit: his cell phone activity is/was sitting in the server cache of his ISP (the phone company.) Throw 'em in the river, yeah, that'll work!

Lawyered up? He's the State Attorney General. Wow, are you MAGA really this dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He could have lawyered up and thrown both of his cell phones in a river.

Republican dimwit: his cell phone activity is/was sitting in the server cache of his ISP (the phone company.) Throw 'em in the river, yeah, that'll work!

Lawyered up? He's the State Attorney General. Wow, are you MAGA really this dumb?[/quote

PP needs some basic education in criminal tactics. PP, your word for the day is "burner".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim's glasses were found inside the car. I don't understand how anybody can defend rvnsbrg knowing that one simple fact.

Is it possible the force of the crash, combined with how quickly it probably happened, could make it so that he didn’t see the victim ?

Then that is negligent manslaughter. The point is that if he was paying attention to driving instead of reading news on his phone, he should have seen the victim before hitting and killing him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The victim's glasses were found inside the car. I don't understand how anybody can defend rvnsbrg knowing that one simple fact.

What I don't get is "the coverup is worse than the crime".

If he called right away he was definitely reading stuff on the phone--actually selecting links (the BCI guys discuss this in the interview). If not he was inexplicably sitting around playing on his phone and reading conspiracy theories before deciding to call. If he'd had drinks at the dinner he would have known someone would have spilled that.

I have to think he really did think it was a deer and figured his driving habits wouldn't come up. The guy is a former prosecutor! But has a talent for magical thinking clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He could have lawyered up and thrown both of his cell phones in a river.

Republican dimwit: his cell phone activity is/was sitting in the server cache of his ISP (the phone company.) Throw 'em in the river, yeah, that'll work!

Lawyered up? He's the State Attorney General. Wow, are you MAGA really this dumb?[/quote

PP needs some basic education in criminal tactics. PP, your word for the day is "burner".

What??? The Attorney General of the state would have a burner? Um, why? Why would that be? You MAGA types are comical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim's glasses were found inside the car. I don't understand how anybody can defend rvnsbrg knowing that one simple fact.

Is it possible the force of the crash, combined with how quickly it probably happened, could make it so that he didn’t see the victim ?

Then that is negligent manslaughter. The point is that if he was paying attention to driving instead of reading right wing propaganda on his phone, he should have seen the victim before hitting and killing him.

He wasn’t reading news. He was reading some right wing conspiracy theory bull ish.

[Anonymous]

Gosh, if only he had:

a) thrown his cell phone "in the river" or,
b) better yet, been a user of an unregistered burner cell phone (which is so common among high-ranking state officials) and/or
c) maybe, just for good measure, thrown his burner phone in the river (thanks goodness for that handy river, eh?)

... it all could've been so different.

MAGA!

[Anonymous]

He had *two* phones in his possession that night. He could have destroyed the one he was using to browse websites and/or never mention it to police. Instead he immediately admitted he had two phones, then immediately handed them over to police so they could download everything off of them. Then he let himself be interviewed for two hours without an attorney. The police didn't use "ISP data" to nail him, they used his words during the interrogation and what they downloaded off his phones to nail him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He had *two* phones in his possession that night. He could have destroyed the one he was using to browse websites and/or never mention it to police. Instead he immediately admitted he had two phones, then immediately handed them over to police so they could download everything off of them. Then he let himself be interviewed for two hours without an attorney. The police didn't use "ISP data" to nail him, they used his words during the interrogation and what they downloaded off his phones to nail him.

Dear MAGA,

He had *two* phones in his possession that night. He could have destroyed the one he was using to browse websites and/or never mention it to police.

It doesn't matter if he had 10 phones. The police already knew what phones he had -- a state-issued one and a personal one. "Never mention it to the police,"(!) is that like "throwing it in the river"?

Instead he immediately admitted he had two phones, then immediately handed them over to police so they could download everything off of them.

So many immediatelys! But, anyway, the data is just ones and zeros. It isn't "on" the phone. It's on a server, in a cache... next to a river (with phones in it.)

Then he let himself be interviewed for two hours without an attorney.

Interesting... am wondering if perhaps the fact that he is the f***ing Attorney General of the f***ing state might have contributed to his willingness to feel the situation out without the aid of legal counsel... Y'know, being the Attorney General of the state 'n' all...

The police didn't use "ISP data" to nail him, they used his words during the interrogation and what they downloaded off his phones to nail him.

The ISP data make his words (a craven stream of dorky hokum and reflexive lying) moot. And they haven't nailed him. He's still lying and trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim's glasses were found inside the car. I don't understand how anybody can defend rvnsbrg knowing that one simple fact.

Is it possible the force of the crash, combined with how quickly it probably happened, could make it so that he didn’t see the victim ?

Then that is negligent manslaughter. The point is that if he was paying attention to driving instead of reading right wing propaganda on his phone, he should have seen the victim before hitting and killing him.

He wasn’t reading news. He was reading some right wing conspiracy theory bull ish.

Not entirely. One of the articles he was reading was from Real Clear Politics, which, while right-leaning, is still considered a moderate source. So, some of what he was reading was news and some was right wing. In any event, what I wrote was still accurate despite what you want to think.

[Anonymous]

Not entirely. One of the articles he was reading was from Real Clear Politics, which, while right-leaning, is still considered a moderate source. So, some of what he was reading was news and some was right wing. In any event, what I wrote was still accurate despite what you want to think.

re: the phrase "he was reading," you forgot to add the clause "while driving a car" circa 75 mph. #details

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not entirely. One of the articles he was reading was from Real Clear Politics, which, while right-leaning, is still considered a moderate source. So, some of what he was reading was news and some was right wing. In any event, what I wrote was still accurate despite what you want to think.

re: the phrase "he was reading," you forgot to add the clause "while driving a car" circa 75 mph. #details

You conveniently clipped out my previous comment. I was responding to someone who changed my text from "reading news" to "reading right-wing propaganda" and informing him that he was making a poor substitution.

Then that is negligent manslaughter. The point is that if he was paying attention to driving instead of reading news on his phone, he should have seen the victim before hitting and killing him.

You're one of those people who likes to take comments out of context and then lambast people for it. SMH.