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

Anonymous wrote:What were the toxicology reports on the man he hit? How did that man crash his truck?

No info on that BUT he was seen by 3 people walking on the grass on the side of the road, not in the roadway. And using his flashlight.

I honestly do think assumptions that it was a deer were paramount for both the AG and the sheriff. If I remember right the sheriff was at home, lived just a mile and a half away, regarded this as something to just get out of the way not expecting it would blow up like it did. It didn't sound like the sheriff did much of a search of the ditches himself. I don't know if SD sheriffs are elected or appointed but guessing he will lose that job. At least three people had seen the guy walking and recognized him in spite of how dark it was --IDK why they hadn't offered to help, seems odd for rural people. Any time I had a vehicle problem in rural areas people were super helpful and once it was 1 am on a Sunday night.

Anonymous wrote:What were the toxicology reports on the man he hit? How did that man crash his truck?

Blame the victim. The Republican way. Maybe if he hadn’t dressed like a tramp

Your questions are addressed earlier in the thread. The AG swerved off the road and hit him on the shoulder of the highway.

I’d like to hear what the local sheriff who missed the body with a lighted flashlight next to it has to say for himself. Talk about dereliction of duty.

What were the toxicology reports on the man he hit? How did that man crash his truck?

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.

If he was phoning while driving, that's not just an accident. If he were just a lousy driver, that would be different.

He made lots of effort to clean it up, to make it go away. That's not humility.

My brother hit and killed someone while driving. He immediately stopped and called the police. He was interviewed at the scene but not charged, since she had been in the road. And he had not been phoning while driving, or drinking, or anything else.

Ravsborg's life has been changed by what he did. Destroyed? No, but he will not continue as if he didn't kill a man through his own mistake.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can watch video hours of this guy talking to the cops. Shannon Watts (head of Moms Demand Action) links on her twitter. It is crazy.

He is clearly surfing the web, They can show he is clicking on stories. Then 60 seconds later calls 911. The cop is like, how do you have time to put your phone down, hit someone, pull over, get your bearings, call 911. I mean CLEARLY he was on the phone during the crash.

We can assume, but you can not prove it. Unless the car had a black box and 4G wireless security monitoring that recorded the crash time down to the millisecond. But I doubt a 2011 Ford Taurus is that sophisticated.

He was playing on his phone This is vehicular manslaughter

Apparently it's not since phoning while driving is fine in South Dakota.

You have his statement what he did when, the area of the collision right outside of town where he'd stopped for gas (and was still close enough to walk towards town and see the sign for Highmore, along with a time stamp for his purchase), and you have the cell phone records (which also had his GPS).

But what about the sheriff who apparently didn't conduct any kind of thorough search at the time?

Is there some sort of “accessory to vehicular manslaughter” charge? Because there should be.

Kristi Noem wants him gone--but she is also facing likely AG investigation into her use of state plane to travel to political events. So if he resigns she gets to pick the person who investigates her. And a SD judge slapped a restraint on those investigation videos after she was the one who decided to release them and then call for his resignation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can watch video hours of this guy talking to the cops. Shannon Watts (head of Moms Demand Action) links on her twitter. It is crazy.

He is clearly surfing the web, They can show he is clicking on stories. Then 60 seconds later calls 911. The cop is like, how do you have time to put your phone down, hit someone, pull over, get your bearings, call 911. I mean CLEARLY he was on the phone during the crash.

We can assume, but you can not prove it. Unless the car had a black box and 4G wireless security monitoring that recorded the crash time down to the millisecond. But I doubt a 2011 Ford Taurus is that sophisticated.

He was playing on his phone This is vehicular manslaughter

Apparently it's not since phoning while driving is fine in South Dakota.

You have his statement what he did when, the area of the collision right outside of town where he'd stopped for gas (and was still close enough to walk towards town and see the sign for Highmore, along with a time stamp for his purchase), and you have the cell phone records (which also had his GPS).

But what about the sheriff who apparently didn't conduct any kind of thorough search at the time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can watch video hours of this guy talking to the cops. Shannon Watts (head of Moms Demand Action) links on her twitter. It is crazy.

He is clearly surfing the web, They can show he is clicking on stories. Then 60 seconds later calls 911. The cop is like, how do you have time to put your phone down, hit someone, pull over, get your bearings, call 911. I mean CLEARLY he was on the phone during the crash.

We can assume, but you can not prove it. Unless the car had a black box and 4G wireless security monitoring that recorded the crash time down to the millisecond. But I doubt a 2011 Ford Taurus is that sophisticated.

He was playing on his phone This is vehicular manslaughter

Apparently it's not since phoning while driving is fine in South Dakota.

They banned it effective July 2020. While he was AG.

"His glasses are there, Jason. Those are Joe's."
"We know those are his glasses. We know they were on his head because they were seen on his head. They ended up in your car."
"One other thing we know Jason is that you weren't in the middle of the road. You were on the shoulder. And I know it happens fast because it's happened to me. We have three people putting him next to the grass."


"There is bone scrape on the inside of the rumble bars. That's where his leg was likely broke. That's where the pieces were at."

"So how did he get that far down the road--did he ride?"

"His face was in your windshield, Jason. Think about how fast you were going" and discussion about ABS braking and momentum and distance before he goes into the ditch.

"Did you see the flashlight he was carrying".
The flashlight was still on the next day when the detectives got to the scene.

Later they tested what the flashlight would look like on a dark night. They said it was like a beacon.

"I think you had an idea it was something other than a deer. In your 911 call Jason you said you hit 'something'"

He says he did not think a man would be out there on the road at night. Besides people with disabled cars there can always be a drunk person walking along the road. He'd been a deputy State's Attorney and also worked under the US Attorney, which meant major crimes jurisdiction over the several reservations in SD (9 total) where people also get run over in the middle of the night because they are mostly rural.

http://dakotafreepress.com/2021/02/26/ravnsborg-missed-chance-to-block-release-of-investigation-videos-because-defense-attorney-was-out-of-state/

Talk about a bad week: the Governor and his party turn against him, and his own paid lawyer can’t stick around town to file motions to save his sorry keester from the Governor’s obvious pressure campaign and his ensuing public disgrace. Had Rensch been in town (or just better at leaving instructions for his law partners or getting on Zoom or whatever it takes to file a motion from the road), he could have gotten Judge Brown to issue his gag order by suppertime Tuesday, and none of us would have seen the videos and learned that Ravnsborg was scrolling through websites on his phone minutes, perhaps seconds before he hit Joe Boever with his car. None of us would know that investigators found Boever’s glasses inside Jason’s car, proving that Boever’s face went through Jason’s windshield. None of us would know that GPS and step data from Ravnsborg’s phone show that he walked past Boever’s body twice at the side of the road that night. None of us would know that Joe Boever’s flashlight was still on, lying beside him in the grass at the edge of the road and shining like, in the investigator’s word, a “beacon”, and that Ravnsborg did not see that light in the darkness. None of us would know that Ravsnborg saw Boever’s pickup truck in the ditch but didn’t put two and two together that maybe what he had hit was not a deer but the owner of that truck.

Also has the full interviews.

Because I didn't get enough sleep this week, I was completely unproductive at home after dragging myself through a (productive) workday. Listening to parts of the first interview. It starts with the AG and the 2 guys from BCI chatting about whose had covid and who hasn't, during the interview the guy who asks most of the questions is chatty and friendly and sympathetic but completely on task (and giving him the scenarios where he could have with all good intentions been in fact reading the blogs right when it happened) --"you've been called out on that before, haven't you?" referencing and incident when he did get called out apparently for texting while driving through the Badlands. "And suddenly it's in your face and you're thinking what's happened here? And I can see where it's like 'oh, I should not have done this' and there it is and you're in a jam."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can watch video hours of this guy talking to the cops. Shannon Watts (head of Moms Demand Action) links on her twitter. It is crazy.

He is clearly surfing the web, They can show he is clicking on stories. Then 60 seconds later calls 911. The cop is like, how do you have time to put your phone down, hit someone, pull over, get your bearings, call 911. I mean CLEARLY he was on the phone during the crash.

We can assume, but you can not prove it. Unless the car had a black box and 4G wireless security monitoring that recorded the crash time down to the millisecond. But I doubt a 2011 Ford Taurus is that sophisticated.

He was playing on his phone This is vehicular manslaughter

Apparently it's not since phoning while driving is fine in South Dakota.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ivanka-trump-wants-us-all-to-know-shes-having-fun-in-miami-damn-it

yeah, glasses through the windshield, holy c***

A couple of times I have just barely grazed a deer or thought I may have, and the deer could not be found (night time), I was fairly sympathetic to the guy after initial reports. This stuff really got buried back then it seems.