DaCola prediction on AG Ravnsborg’s case

Image; Found on Facebook

As I predicted early on, it seems, at this point, I may be spot on. I predicted that since Jason was an elector in the presidential race they would essentially drag this out until after the election, and since the (two time loser) orange dinkle dorf in DC still thinks he has a chance to change the elector’s votes, I predict we won’t hear about any possible charges until after December 14th when the electors officially turn in their votes.

I was ridiculed from the left and the right that what I was predicting and saying was a nothing burger, but my dissenters may get pretty full eating that burger when I turn out to be correct.

Obviously as pointed out to me, the legislature and governor could appoint other electors if Jason is hauled off to jail before December 14th, but that’s complicated and puts the ‘appearance’ that electors in our state are not on the up and up, as if Trump hasn’t already put a shroud of stink over this election.

The one thing I learned long ago about local and state government in South Dakota is that it is very predictable because their stupid tricks have worked for over 40 years foolin’ and scrooin’ the public. They literally have been playing the same deck of cards for almost 50 years and no one has figured it out.

Run over a guy at a rural intersection, blame it on a Diet Coke. A non-hunter government employee in charge of EB-5 kills himself in a grove of trees, blame it on a branch. Fraud and abuse in the Gear-Up program, house burns down, blame it on a missing safe. Every time, unbelievable and pathetic excuses that just get swept under the rug. I can’t wait to hear Jason’s pathetic defense.

As for that defense, the rumor mill going around between state’s attorney’s offices is that Jason was talking on his phone when it happened. As you may or may not know, as of July 1, 2020 it is illegal to use your phone while driving unless it is hands free. Not sure if this is what happened, but it seems to be the leading rumor.


#1 Legally Dumb on 11.29.20 at 3:52 pm

“As for that defense, the rumor mill going around between state’s attorney’s offices is that Jason was talking on his phone when it happened. As you may or may not know, as of July 1, 2020 it is illegal to use your phone while driving unless it is hands free. “

Uhhh Scott you are an idiot. That is not the law. Like I’ve always said Scott doesn’t know anything and apparently can’t read.

#2 "Very Stable Genius" on 11.29.20 at 6:17 pm

Janklow had his accident in mid August and by mid December his trial had already happen. By these standards, a trial in this matter should be convened in January. But I don’t think that will happen given discovery.

A course with Janklow’s thing, then Governor Rounds was quite cooperative with the press on that matter, while our current governor not so much.

This situation speaks loudly to the growing authoritarian nature of the Republican Party both in this state and nation.

Meanwhile, they tell us, the GOP that is, that we should be worried about the communists and socialists who are beneath our beds.

#3 l3wis on 11.29.20 at 7:15 pm

LD, While you are correct I got the part wrong about having the phone up to your ear, I am pretty sure driving completely off the road and driving over a person in the shoulder and killing them is more than a minor traffic offense, and I can guarantee, if you were distracted by phone call when you did it, that would also be illegal.

#4 "Very Stable Genius" on 11.29.20 at 10:10 pm

Specific intent cell phone law or not, it’s still the law because of involuntary manslaughter. The tread marks show that his car was not on the road proper.

#5 Crimesceneinvestigator on 11.30.20 at 9:26 am

Holy cow VSG, if you can solve traffic accidents over the inter webs, you can save SD millions every year. Why are you wasting such a talent? Maybe you should do that and be the judge and jury as well….think of the time savings!

We could even start a TV series where Detroit Lewis makes predictions about the guilt of govt officials, you solve the cases using just the inter web, then decide the cases and sentence the perps. Think of the ratings!!!!

#6 John on 11.30.20 at 12:28 pm

This is a civil case at best. No way is this manslaughter.

There was a good article at the beginning of the difficulty of bringing any case with pedestrians, let alone the facts of this case.

We know Boever was walking in dark clothing in the dark after he had his own accident which was unreported. The cousins say they think he was heading out to the truck and so that means he was illegally walking , going the wrong direction. Plus we still don’t know his toxicology and from everything i have heard he had been drinking, which makes sense as who hits a hale bale in the ditch?

#7 "Very Stable Genius" on 11.30.20 at 1:09 pm

CSI, You would obviously be watching, wouldn’t you? Maybe we should. But I also like how you go tangent to the discussion once I bring involuntary manslaughter to the table. Where I come from, your response is called gas lighting.

#8 l3wis on 11.30.20 at 2:07 pm

John, I recommend you read the facts of the case. It has already determined that Jason went off the road and was distracted and that Boever was carrying a flashlight. I struggle with blaming the victim on this one.

#9 Reliable Voter on 11.30.20 at 6:55 pm

And then there’s “Deer Stand Dave” Natvig heading up the DCI.


#10 "Very Stable Genius" on 11.30.20 at 10:56 pm

Blowing through an intersection with a stop sign in your face is manslaughter. Driving into the shoulder of the road at full speed is involuntary manslaughter, at least.

#11 John on 12.01.20 at 9:41 am


Even by your own statement you acquit the AG. If he was just at full speed, that is not manslaughter. He needs to be at a reckless speed and the report that was released shows he was not. Reckless is an excessive speed. Sorry folks as much as you have hated the AG here– the facts do not support charges.


#12 l3wis on 12.01.20 at 10:53 am

You keep forgetting to mention he was driving in the shoulder when he struck Boever, doesn’t matter his speed, he was off the road. It seems your love for Jason is getting in the way of your judgement.

#13 John on 12.01.20 at 12:47 pm

No, I like to research and find out the law.

Just going over the line does not get you to the standard needed for manslaughter as VSG stated.

His conduct has to be RECKLESS, read the article -attorneys are saying it does not qualify criminally and it is also a tough civil case; especially if Boever is walking in the dark, in dark clothing, going away from traffic in violation of the law and possibly intoxicated after his own unreported accident.

#14 D@ily Spin on 12.01.20 at 12:52 pm

There was a death that was not deliberate but there’s responsibility. I’d say at least a manslaughter charge. If it’s ok to run people over, let’s go bowling for corrupt politicians.

#15 D@ily Spin on 12.01.20 at 12:55 pm

It should be illegal to do number 3 while driving.

#16 "Very Stable Genius" on 12.01.20 at 2:46 pm

But its a reckless speed for the shoulder of the road. The standard you use suggests that the car is still on the road proper.

Whenever I have pulled over to the side of the road, or the shoulder, I slow down. I don’t just turn over ,and then slam the brakes on. (“Was that a deer?”)

The article John mentions, states: “…wasn’t obviously ‘reckless’ “… Well, maybe if there is no cell phone or excessive speed involved as the driver walks into the shoulder.

This whole attempt to suggest that this incident is not manslaughter reminds me of the interview that McGowan did with KELO, after the Copper Lounge collapse, where he conveniently confused civil and criminal law so as to confuse and defuse the public’s interest in possible criminal charges for that tragedy as well.

Let us not forget also, that most South Dakota lawyers are a part of one big clique and from one law school. That on its merits, is not a healthy situation for South Dakota’s jurisprudence and invites a complacency and cautiousness which often does not serve the public well.

I will allege that’s why EB5 offered no indictments and GEARUP was limited to the city of Platte and its activities.

#17 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 12.01.20 at 5:42 pm

Does this all mean, that I can still pass an other car on a single lane highway, if a car is coming from the opposite direction, as long as I use the shoulder and do not exceed the “full speed”? #ShoulderingTheResponsbility #WatchThisHoney! #TheyAreComingFromBothDirections!

#18 The Guy From Guernsey on 12.01.20 at 9:44 pm

John have you viewed and read the motor Vehicle Traffic Accident report filed by an officer of the SD State Patrol after investigation of this incident?

#19 The Guy From Guernsey on 12.01.20 at 9:53 pm

“… who hits a hale bale in the ditch?”
Someone driving a vehicle which suffered a mechanical breakdown which rendered the vehicle uncontrollable. Think broken tie rod or steering mechanism.
The shaming of the victim in your posts is repugnant.

#20 The Guy From Guernsey on 12.01.20 at 10:07 pm

“… most South Dakota lawyers are … from one law school …”
“… invites a complacency and cautiousness which often does not serve the public well.”
Very true. And may I add a 3rd “C” to this list of concerns, one which doesn’t serve well the clients of these barristers?
Competency (or lack thereof).
Very poor record of producing graduates with an ability to pass the South Dakota bar exam, reputed as one of the easiest in the country.

#21 l3wis on 12.01.20 at 10:09 pm

I’m with Guy on this. Growing up on a farm I can count on several hands where I went off the road for several reasons. Loose gravel, shitty truck, things happen. When I read he hit a bale in the ditch, I did not even blink. I done it several times. Farming is one of the most dangerous businesses in the country, it actually ranks #6th in the nation. I knew farmers that were missing feet, eyes, hands, toes and fingers, some dead, from farming accidents. There are several factors. I remember a non farmer saying to me, “How could a hale bale hurt a truck.” Then I asked him, “Ever hit a round bale? Solid as a rock. It’s bound tighter than two coats of paint.” Most people don’t comprehend what our farmers go thru every day. They probably suffer several injuries a week. Crazy animals, equipment malfunction, weather, allergies and dust, chemicals, etc.

A farmer was walking in a ditch to pick up his truck, and suddenly this victim is the criminal. It’s disgraceful and disgusting.

#22 "Very Stable Genius" on 12.02.20 at 12:44 am


As a historical perspective, prior to 1963, one could enter the USD Law School without a bachelor’s, and prior to the winter of 1981, a USD Law School graduate was automatically a member of the state bar without ever having to be tested for it.

And in recent years, yes, they have had problems with graduates passing the state bar.

Keep in mind too, that if you were 22 years old in ’63, let’s say, you would now be 79 years old and maybe still practicing or advising other lawyers. Although, lifelong experiences should help to perfect your lawyering by know. While those who graduated in the spring of ’81, at age 25, would now be 64 years old and still most likely practicing with hopefully life long experiences of lawyering to their advantages as well.

That’s why, whenever I see a lawyer practicing in this state, who came from an out-of-state law school, I find it refreshing.

Back in December of 1983, the late Roger McKellips, a state senator from Alcester, had called for the closing of the USD law school claiming we had too many lawyers in the state. Maybe he was right. But is it quantity or quality?

It was also ironic, I thought, when a couple years ago then governor Daugaard established a commission on the future of the USD Law School, and then he had it chaired by a Harvard Law School graduate, Mark Mickelson. That’s like hiring an outside consultant to save a small business.

( and Woodstock adds: “‘too many lawyers’?”…. “Well, we all know what Shakespeare once wrote….” 😉 )

#23 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 12.02.20 at 1:03 am

We’re the only lower 48 state without Amtrak. Watertown to Fargo was the last piece of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System to be completed. Pierre was the last state capital to get a four lane highway into it. We lack masks, too. Maybe we don’t need a law school either.

#24 Missedout on 12.02.20 at 4:45 pm

I’ve been off here a bit, trying to get caught up. Did VSG solve the case? How did the trial go? Which jail did VSG send him to?

Scott, how many bales have you hit in the ditch during your lifetime?????

#25 "Very Stable Genius" on 12.02.20 at 7:53 pm


I am thinking of pardoning him and you, too. 😉

#26 The Guy From Guernsey on 12.05.20 at 9:27 am

Good history lesson. To summarize: a professional school culture of which is absent of achievement and excellence (because at points time for the current and immediate previous generation of law school students and administrators, one did not have to achieve much in order to be members of the South Dakota Bar).

#27 The Guy From Guernsey on 12.05.20 at 9:44 am

AFA the USD Law School Task Force – the scope of examination was not wide enough.
The only issue considered was location of the Law School.
IMO, should have also considered to discontinue the Law School @ USD; perhaps transfer the mission to a private school (hmmmm, a law school at Augustana would place it in a different academic environmrnt AND relocate the school to Sioux Falls – which I believe was the primary mission of the task force).
Many times a consultant is hired to render the finding which those in-charge want/desire (see also – Sioux Falls, City of).
Rather than academic heritage, perhaps more important to the outcome was the residence of the task force chairperson (e.g. if you want a task force to recommend that all, or part of the Law School should be in Sioux Falls, place at the helm a politically prominant lawyer … who lives in Sioux Falls).