UPDATE: South Dakota Attorney General Ravnsborg should resign

The state releases Jason’s investigation interview videos. I have to admit when I wrote the original post on Sunday Afternoon, I never thought Sh!t would hit the fan come Sunday Night. Not sure if they will garner the 2/3 vote to boot him out. I have a feeling this really isn’t about Jason, but more about Noem wanting to replace him with a minion that will do her bidding.

VIDEO LINKS HAVE BEEN BROKEN

Since this seemed to be the biggest news story of all time on Thursday I figured I would take a couple of days to process my thoughts.

It’s pretty simple when you look at the facts of the case and the 5 month investigation, Ravnsborg likely broke the law (he is charged with 3 counts) and as our top law enforcement official in the state he should resign. He should also have his law license at least suspended for 2-3 years.

I know Noem has been chomping at the bit to replace him with an appointment she could lead around like a show pony but that speculation shouldn’t factor into the fact that Jason drove off the road illegally and killed someone.

I keep coming back to one word ‘integrity’ and as an elected official the only way to have this is by doing the ethical thing and resign, and that is really in his hands. The legislature will likely not take action, mostly because they are fascist cowards that don’t have the courage of a prairie dog. The SD Bar Association will likely not take action because in situations like this they usually circle the wagons.

A few years ago one of the Assistant City Attorneys for Sioux Falls who represents the SFPD was charged with a DUI and plead guilty to the charge, not only did he keep his job and received no punishment from the city, he has kept his post as the SFPD advisor and the SD Bar Association took no action.

It’s called the good old boy network.

While I agree SD laws are lax and it has probably been hard for the prosecution to charge him with much more, I do have concerns about how we came to this, and think the family of the victim have an incredibly strong civil case.

• Prosecutors gave us few details about questioning Jason and what his answers were about that night. Why is this?

• While they argue he didn’t receive special treatment in the prosecution, he certainly did with no investigation or toxicology test given the night of the accident. Heck, they didn’t even look for a body and the sheriff borrowed him his car. I also take issue with a 5 month investigation. If you ever go and read these accident reports from other cases in our state the results are usually given within 24-48 hours. There is no doubt in my mind that this long, extra thorough investigation was because he was receiving special treatment. It takes 5 months to determine someone drove into the shoulder of the road?! Give me a break.

• While the timeline is murky, about a month or so ago Jason told the media he was ‘innocent’ and didn’t commit any crimes. He knows this was untrue. I hope this comes up in his initial hearing for 3 counts.

I think Jason is going to fight the charges which I find baffling, because he really should be doing only two things, resigning and pleading guilty.



60 comments ↓

#1 Very Stable Genius on 02.21.21 at 4:19 pm

#WhiteRepublicanPrivilege

#2 l3wis on 02.21.21 at 4:52 pm

It’s f’ing disgusting that this POS doesn’t have the sack to quit?!

#3 Very Stable Genius on 02.21.21 at 10:57 pm

Maybe he’ll resign now:

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2021/02/21/jason-ravnsborg-sd-house-members-consider-impeaching-attorney-general/4536871001/

#4 Jake on 02.22.21 at 1:40 am

So another expert that doesn’t believe in due process…interesting.

The AG got charged with 3 misdemeanors, not convicted and they said one of them didn’t have anything to do with the accident.

Even in your own example the man was convicted of a DUI, which is far worse than these 3 charges.

Janklow didn’t resign until he was convicted and that was a felony.

#5 Mike Lee Zitterich on 02.22.21 at 2:26 am

For all you wishing to “change” change state laws to make it a crime when killing a pedestrian while driving an motor vehicle via an accident other than when DRUNK or HIGH ON DRUGS…Do you really want the “State Government” to have that much power to convict you of a criminal activity while driving down a Public Highway?

I do not wish to change the State Law .. I do not think the Attorney General intended to kill anyone, nor do I believe this is anything more than an accident.

The “LAW” was written in such manner that the “Government” could not prosecute any case of where a pedestrian or driver, or passenger died in a Motor Vehicle Accident, less from being intoxicated or on drugs.

By writing the law in this manner; ‘we’ are saying that all incidents on Public Highways, Streets, Roads are to be considered “Accidents” of which then may or may not lead to damaging private or public property, causing injuries, death, etc.

The “law” restricts the State from entrapping “You” in an activity that you had no intent to partake in.

This is why all automobile accidents are considered “civil cases” and not criminal cases. YOU have the right to sue for damages stemming from the accident, to reclaim financial losses (medical, vehicle repairs, funeral costs, etc).

While the STATE cannot bring forth such case against Jason Ravsborg for the allegation of murder/killing a person; the FAMILY may if they deem he so killed Mr Boever.

The FAMILY could at anytime bring forth an allegation that Mr Ravsborg personally sought out, stalked, followed, chased Mr Boever with the intent to harm, injure, or kill him. IF they can present sufficient evidence of this activity, but I do not think there is any such evidence; their only case is a civil case in order to reclaim damages stemming from the accident which would be the “Funeral Costs” which most likely would amount to $20-25,000 dollars only.

What strikes me as odd; is NO ONE is questioning Mr. Boever as to why he was attempting to walk a lonely, dark highway at 10:30 pm; we all know that he to violated state laws by driving his vehicle off the road, hitting a hay barrell, causing such damage he could NOT drive him. Was he drunk as well? He would have under S.D codified law also have received a Fine;

No one ever asks this question, they simply want to blame, attack Mr Ravsborg whom did everything right under the law – he called 911, reported the incident, he was coherent enough to make the call, drive home in a rental, then come back the next day to search the scene.

I vote to NOT change state law, I would not want to give the State that much power to convict any of vehicle homicide while driving on public roads, that is to much power, and for what? Causing an Accident?

Stop and think what you are asking for when wishing to change the state law …

Jason Ravsborg is innocent here, and should not have to lose his job because of an accident, none of us lose our job based on traffic accidents.

– Mike Zitterich

#6 rufusx on 02.22.21 at 7:59 am

Mr. Zitterich.. “No one asks……” is purely hyperbolic spin on your part. The fact is I personally have seen several “someones” engage in the same questioning/blaming the victim as you do here. You insinuate that Mr. Boever had no right to walk toward traffic carrying a light in his hand on a road 1/2 mile from his house and “deserves” to have been killed by the AG of the state who was driving a vehicle on that road while not paying especial attention.

#7 Question? on 02.22.21 at 9:08 am

The real question is whether Jason’s automobile clock was accurately programmed to exactly match the cellphone GPS system to realize the 1 minute discrepancy “proving” his hanging up the phone “before” the hit.

There is a question of flimsiness of the “evidence” the state’s attorney is relying on to have her law school mate found to have made a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

#8 D@ily Spin on 02.22.21 at 9:25 am

The usual, litigation until the end of his term so he can’t be dismissed or prosecuted. How Trumpian. It’s Republican 101. He’s idle so maybe some misspelled Twitter or provoke a crowd to take over the Capitol.

#9 anominous on 02.22.21 at 11:22 am

Is there like, an angie’s list somewhere of mechanics who know what involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide is

#10 Very Stable Genius on 02.22.21 at 1:01 pm

Jake,

The GOP impeached Clinton without a conviction. In fact, Clinton didn’t settle that issue with the special prosecutor until the day he left office, which was two years after his acquittal in the US Senate.

Plus, an obvious impeachment could encourage a resignation, that’s how we got rid of Nixon.

( and Woodstock adds: “Say, if I leave my tea pot on the stove too long, would that mean I am careless or reckless?”…… )

#11 Very Stable Genius on 02.22.21 at 1:25 pm

Here’s an other question: Does cell phone activity tracing include scrolling?

#12 Mike Lee Zitterich on 02.22.21 at 2:03 pm

RUFSX – I made no personal attack against Mr Boever, nor did I make any assumptions of him at all.

I simply stated NO ONE ever asks the question that needs to be entertained here; What was the reason for Mr Boever walking down a public highway @ 10:30 PM.

You sir, entertained the thought process that I was attacking Mr Boever, but no where in my comments did I attack Mr Boever.

In a public court room, the actions of Mr Boever will surely get entered as Exhibits A, B, C, and D by the attorney’s of Mr Ravsborg; this means they will have provided a time line of events leading up to the ‘accident’ at 10:30 PM that fateful night.

All historical evidence would be entered, tracing Mr Boever’s foot steps, actions up to 24 hours proceedingf he accident –

a) Why did Mr Boever cross the white line, thus driving off into the ditch.

b) What caused him to hit the hay barrell, thus damaging someone’s property, let alone his own property.

c) The call Mr Boever made to a relative to come pick him up, take him home, and decide to go get the truck in the morning.

d) The thought process of Mr Boever of the reason why he chose to leave his home at 10:00 PM to get his vehicle, let alone get evidence of a vehicle accident earlier in the evening;

e) the Defendent’s Attorney would entertain the facts of the case as to what may have MR Boever been hiding, that was so urgent to get his property at 10:30 PM

d) They would call forth witnesses to testify on Mr Boever’s behavior, thoughts, and comments prior the accident, in order to understand his train of mind.

The Prosecution would do the same against Mr Ravsborg …

You are so sure that Mr Ravsborg is the only one that may have committed a traffic incident on that day, thus accusing him soly alone for the death of Mr Boever.

When in fact – the JUDGE is going to assess the situation, provide his point of view, beliefs, and comments based on evidence, testimony, and the law based on both sides of the story that day.

He, the Judge has precedence and the law on his side; he also has a previous court case from 1966 that sets precedent on how to rule in this matter;

https://casetext.com/case/crabb-v-wade

A judge can only rule, based on the evidence provided, and there is NO EVIDENCE that MR Ravsborg was driving imparied, or drunk, was he distracted yes, was he speeding? no. Did he go outside the white line? yes.

But that same judge will have to entertain the evidence from the other side as well, the actions of MR Boever that fateful night that led to the accident.

The Judge and Jury will most likely rule the same as in 1966 – NO ONE intentionally killed Mr Boever, it was an a typical accident that led to a death of a pedestrian.

The FAMILY wil then sue MR Ravsborg in Civil Court for damages stemming from the Accident, most likely asking for $50,000 dollars,

The Judge will claim Mr Boever’s actions that night played a slight role in the accident itself, and drop that dollar amount to $25,000 dollars.

I made no assumptions Mr Boever did or did not do anything wrong, I simply connecting the dots as any ‘smart attorney’ would do in retracing the steps that day that led to the accident at 10:30 PM

– Mike Zitterich

#13 Very Stable Genius on 02.22.21 at 7:10 pm

The wrongful death lawsuit that Mike cites is a civil case. The current case against Jason is a criminal case.

The issues which Mike raises relative to Mr Boever are not relevant to a criminal case unless you believe a victim’s mini-skirt is relevant in a rape trial.

#14 Uze Crayzmik on 02.22.21 at 9:28 pm

Mike says me tin foil hat has a go pro bro.
Used car, oil change, see me.
I run on constitution sentence.
You won’t believe like gp zoo like snow monkeys.
I like grapefruit.

#15 Mike Lee Zitterich on 02.22.21 at 10:16 pm

There is NO CRIMINAL CASE in the Ravsborg v Boever incident, the COURT has ruled there is NO evidence nor jurisdiction of the State to bring forth such case; this is a CIVIL MATTER between each person. I guess none of you actually listened..

#16 QuestionS on 02.23.21 at 9:50 am

Mike and all, no Court has decided anything only a local prosecutor stating her version for a prosecution.

#17 FeelingBlueInARedState on 02.23.21 at 10:30 am

Hi Mike, I think you really made your point. This is a civil matter based on the laws in SD.

However, I think we can agree that Jason was negligent in the operation of his vehicle.

You said, “Do you really want the “State Government” to have that much power to convict you of a criminal activity while driving down a Public Highway?” I think we should clarify that Jason was driving down the SHOULDER of the highway and into the pathway where a citizen was walking (sounds like there may be some uncertainty as to their direction). Yeah, for me, I kind of do want the government to say that it was wrong.

Saying something was an accident often means that it was unable to be prevented. That it was an act of God, or a chance occurrence. While Jason might not have intended to leave the roadway, he did. That resulted in a person’s death.

#18 D@ily Spin on 02.23.21 at 10:53 am

Sounds like another OJ thing. Innocent in criminal court but guilty in civil court. Then, hide assets overseas. Oh well, it’s certainly the end of his political career.

#19 Republican hate? on 02.23.21 at 11:36 am

What is it with you Demoncrats? This would be different if this was reckless driving (I’m not looking it up for you) but instead it is careless driving (again, look it up). If the prosecutor would have said reckless, it would be fought in a court, and Jason would win easily, cause, well no evidence saying he was recklessly driving. So, he carelessly went over the white line, yes he did. So, look at the legal side of reckless vs careless driving and tell me what he could possibly be charged with-that would stick?

If he was a D, let’s say a Kennedy, and drove off the road, and, oh I don’t know, killed a woman, would he still be eligible for public office?

#20 Mike Lee Zitterich on 02.23.21 at 12:00 pm

Again, for those of you who wish for our laws to be changed that “STATE GOVT” can find you guilty of criminal activity of “accidents” on public roadways, do not understand the concept of “We the People Shall have the Right to be free from tyranny”.

We have two select clauses in our State Constitution that protects “YOU” from an over bearing government.

Article 22, Section 1 – That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.

And two, we got Section 6, Section #1 (our most important bill of right) – Inherent rights. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

At what point do we give we begin to give up to much of our inherent right to self govern ourselves, make our own choices, before “government” gains so much power over us, do we then lose the right be able to defend ourselves, our own interests, our mistakes?

How many of you over your previous 50 years of your lives have had an “Accident” while driving, where you hit another vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and injured them, let alone causing severe injuries that they may or may have died?

Would you say you intentionally killed them, or do you say “I am sorry, I for a split second lost control of my vehicle, and hit them”

We have all had an accident at one point in time, where we lost control whether on mud, snow, or ice, let alone we took our eyes off the road for a split second allowing the vehicle to steer off to the left or right.

Should “WE” be held for a criminal act, or was the damage caused by the incident simply a bi-product of your lack of focus at that one select moment in time?

What about all those “drivers” who forget to look to t heir “Right” to see that bicyclist attempting to cross in front of them, then turn right into them cause they failed to look to the right, and injured them, to even killing them?

Do you want the STATE GOVERNMENT having such power to bring forth a criminal case against those citizens – knowing it was simply a lapse of judgement or focus?

No – I would not want the State Government, nor any form of government to gain this much power over us, that it endangers our freedom to maintain our inherent right to control our own destiny.

90.9% of all incidents on Public Highways, Streets, Roads are always considered “Accidents” and for good reason, no one truly ever attempts to cause them, endangers anyone, nor to kill another person.

IF you were to change this law, allowing the State Government to make a Criminal Act from a simple ‘act’ where people lost focus, control of their vehicle, you would be ultimately criminalizing just about every ‘incident’ you see happen on our roads.

The law is written in such manner, that it restricts the Government from presuming that you intended to harm another human being, thus placing the responsibility of “YOURSELF” in bringing forward such ‘charges’ of criminal intent.

Unless of course – it is for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, then we allow the State to Prosecute for Criminal Intent.

Anyone whom says otherwise, is simply a “Fascist”.

The “case” I presented earlier was first brought forward as a Criminal Case; which then later, just as today, decided in Civil Court as it was decided that neither intended to harm the other, and both were in the wrong leading to the incident on our Public Roads in 1966.

Be Careful What You Wish For …

– Mike Zitterich

#21 Very Stable Genius on 02.23.21 at 1:03 pm

“There is NO CRIMINAL CASE in the Ravsborg v Boever incident, the COURT has ruled there is NO evidence nor jurisdiction of the State to bring forth such case; this is a CIVIL MATTER between each person. I guess none of you actually listened… ”

What? Yes, there is a criminal case involving this accident. It’s Ravnsborg v. State. A criminal case never involves the names of the defendant(s) and victim(s). Misdemeanor charges are criminal charges.

Plus, if you are involved in a fender bender and get a speeding ticket your car accident has both civil and criminal aspects to it.

But is there a potential civil case with the Ravnsborg accident, too? Hell yes, but Mike tries to walk back and forth between the two with his initial and continual points.

In fact, Mike uses the word prosecutor in his second point above, but there are no prosecutors in a civil case. There are merely counselors for the plaintiff and the defense.

#22 The Guy From Guernsey on 02.23.21 at 1:14 pm

As it turns out, this is something upon which The Queen and South Dacola agree.
A rare day!
Bartender, I’ll have a beer, please!

#23 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 02.23.21 at 1:22 pm

The AG only gets three misdemeanor charges. A deputy sheriff loans his car to a potential defendant. A pizza place wins a burger battle. Someone stole the Pink pig grill from Karl’s. Sam Drucker is missing a can good. Someone confuses civil and criminal and becomes uncivil, thus making it criminal?

#24 Very Stable Genius on 02.23.21 at 2:06 pm

Oh, one more point, what is meant by: “…the COURT has ruled there is NO evidence nor jurisdiction of the State to bring forth such case…”?

The “COURT” hasn’t ruled in this case yet. Prosecutors have merely practiced what is called prosecutorial discretion in coming up with the charges they have filed.

If Mike is talking about past SD Supreme Court cases, which would be germane to this case, then how could prior cases, which happened before the accident, have evidence relative to this accident? (“Yes, your Honor, I would like to introduce evidence from an other case to prove my case in this proceeding”… )

I think Mike means facts and not evidence, which are actually different, because there is a caveat to that, too.
Because when Mike uses the term “COURT”, I am going to assume that he is indeed talking about the SD Supreme Court, but the SDSC is not a lower court, it’s an appellate court and the only appellate court in the state of South Dakota, and when one petitions an appellate court it is not on a question of fact, or evidence, rather it is on a question of law…. But you can introduce evidence in a lower court, or the court of original jurisdiction, which then becomes the facts of the case.

( and Woodstock adds: “I don’t know, but anyway, you know, Howard Hughes never finished engineering school”… “He only went for two years, yet he built the Spruce Goose which flew only once and barely”… “And many say that two years of engineering is just good enough to get you into trouble”….)

#25 anominous on 02.23.21 at 2:45 pm

The STATE goverment is FORCING me to undergo a MEDICAL PROCEDURE by MANDATING that i WEAR GLASSES while driving MY car on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY

#26 "Woodstock" on 02.23.21 at 5:16 pm

“Say, did someone say something about Teddy?”… “If so, he would be qualified, because he got re-elected in 1970″… “And as far as ‘careless vs reckless’, I say leave it up to a grand jury to see what ‘sticks'”…. “Let the people decide as they once did in ’70 and should have been allowed to do with a grand jury in this current case”…. (“Plus, it’s not really a question if it will ‘Play in Peoria’ this time, rather, it’s a case of whether it will ‘Stick in Stickney'”)……

#27 Very Stable Genius on 02.23.21 at 8:45 pm

You’re right, Noem wants her own Barr.

#28 Very Stable Genius on 02.23.21 at 9:17 pm

If a Native American had been driving that car, would they have let him go that night? Or, would they have brought out spotlights looking for trouble?

#29 l3wis on 02.23.21 at 9:42 pm

What amazes me is if a State AG (from any state) was going into these interviews, wouldn’t you bring in a private attorney? Does he even understand Miranda Rights? There is no way I would have conducted these interviews without a private attorney. It just shows how incredibly unqualified he is to not only be AG but an attorney in General. Baffling.

#30 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 02.23.21 at 9:55 pm

“Roundsberg” drinks that glass of water like it’s a stiff cocktail after a long day. Smart idea to wear a tie the second time, too. And the younger detective, is that Clint Howard from ‘Gentle Ben’? The other detective has a Lawrence quality as well. Who does “Roundsberg” remind us of, however? A nervous Alan Alda? Good thing that Frank Burns wasn’t one of the detectives.

#31 Very Stable Genius on 02.23.21 at 10:35 pm

Absolutely! What the hell?! Two things you definitely learn in law school: Don’t you ever put your criminal defendant on the witness stand, nor ever be questioned by detectives without counsel present.

#32 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 02.23.21 at 11:07 pm

So let me get this right. A governor with multiple speeding tickets wants the AG to resign or be impeached? Karma is coming.

#33 anominous on 02.23.21 at 11:18 pm

https://twitter.com/Argus911/status/1364433710062309387

from Argus Leader 911 thread:

“2:05:00: Ravnsborg wonders where the North Dakota agents will send their report. When they tell him the county, he says, “Good.” He tells them he was worried it would go to Gov. Kristi Noem, because she has said she will make them public. (44/x)”

#34 The Guy From Guernsey on 02.23.21 at 11:26 pm

VSG,
“Two things you definitely learn in law school: Don’t you ever put your criminal defendant on the witness stand, nor ever be questioned by detectives without counsel present.”
Not apparently at the USD Dave Knudson School of Law.

#35 The Guy From Guernsey on 02.23.21 at 11:35 pm

Emily Sovell won’t be moved to elevate her prosecution based from release of these interviews – ‘cuz that would represent work for her part-time office.
But somewhere tonight an attorney for an insurance company picked up a phone to call Heidepriem with a settlement offer.

#36 Further Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 02.23.21 at 11:41 pm

The victim’s eye glasses were found in Jason’s car. Either Jason is a magician, or the victim briefly went for the ride.
Jason thought he hit a deer even though the 911 operator suggested it first. I’ve never known a deer to look like a human, but I have dated a few dears in my life. I guess Jason went to the Spink County event stag, that’s probably why he remembers the waitress well. She must have been a real dear.

#37 Very Stable Genius on 02.23.21 at 11:57 pm

Now, that we have seen the Jason tapes, when are we going to see how much the state pays for the governor’s security? #ManipulativeTransparency

Also, although these tapes are permissible evidence in court, the fact they have been released before trial, then how in the hell is a court ever going to find an impartial jury?

#38 Very Stable Genius on 02.24.21 at 12:12 am

Now, we are learning that the Hyde County State’s Attorney went to law school with Jason? Really? Can anyone spell: “recuse”? Once again, an other example of how having only one law school in a state is a liability, or a hinderance to true justice.

#39 Mike Lee Zitterich on 02.24.21 at 10:07 am

Jason Ravnsborg is completely innocent of any charges he killed a man, simple as that, and if a DEMOCRAT can remain in office, and you democrats do not bark up a tree, let alone cry out against voter fraud, you Democrats have no morals what so ever. You are simply making this a political issue cause you wish to speak against and find guilty in only Republicans.

All the TAPES show is that Jason has enough class to come forward, put his reputation on the line to confront not only the bias media reports, but tell his side of the story.

I know it is hard for you Democrats to understand, but decent people DO NOT intend to kill people while driving down a public highway.

The FAMILY has no case against him for manslaughter, let alone can show any proof of facts that Jason stalked and killed Mr Boever.

Only a negligent person would find himself walking down a dark winding road at 10 PM at night knowing anything is possible. I am not even that dumb to walk down a public highway at the dark of night.

IF you all want to bring forth charges of DUI against Jason, which I do not feel you have any evidence or proof of; then Jason can surely bring forth DUI charges against Mr Boever whom most likely was acting impaired enough to make that decision this fateful night when “HE” was told by a family member to stay HOME. until 9 AM

I have also driven at night, in the wee hours of the morning even, and as tired as you are, and wanting to get home to your family, YOU do not always see things in the road, let alone, on a dark 2 lane highway, you can barely see 1/2 mile ahead of you, let alone a DEER jumps out right in front of you at the last possible second, I doubt any of you would ‘see’ what you hit until its after the fact.

You all want to make this more than this really is – an accident; you acting as Democrats, want to find so much wrong with those whom are Republicans so very bad – that you will twist the facts of this case so much, that you are willing to make up facts, when NONE of you were there this fateful night, nor know the real story except for the two men whom were involved in the incident.

This is why we do investigations, allow for both sides to be heard in a deposition, and allow them to tell their point of view. IT is up to the Prosecutor to bring forward sufficient evidence, proof, or witnesses to prove their claims.

FACT – Jason was not drunk, NO actual witness has ever came forward to tell the prosecution/investigators they saw him drinking that night at the Roosters Club; not even the Waitress that night. What you got is some “biased media story” by the Argus Leader and a few other media persons that ‘claim’ that some bystander supposedly “saw” Mr Ravnsborg have a beer. But to this day, has not come forward with his/her claim to the investigators.

I am so tired of the double standard of the Democrat Party, most likely why no one in South Dakota trusts the party or its members enough to elect them here; You got Mr TED KENNEDY whom actually drove his vehicle off a road into the water, then absolutely left a innocent ‘woman’ to herself left to die, then YOU democrats elected the man in 1970 where he remained in the SENATE until his death in 2011, what were the Democrats hiding…

Be Careful what you preach … a government so strong that it has the ability to sentence you to death for a “traffic accident” has the power to steal your rights.

And NO ONE has spoken on the fact, that if KRISTI NOEM is asking for the Attorney to Resign for her own political gain, this will give her a reason to APPOINT whom she wishes, to defend her interests, all after Mr Jason Ravnsborg has NOT decided to follow her lead and decided to defend your all might “POT-WEED”.

If you want to discuss corruption, then by all means, lets talk corruption; lets talk how the PEOPLE elected Jason to represent their interests as a State, but now Big Kristi Noem now wants to remove him from office, to only replace him with her PUPPET ….

– Mike Zitterich

p.s – I use my actual NAME, not a fake pretend name aka Very Stable Genius (hiding behind a screen name).

#40 Very Stable Genius on 02.24.21 at 10:40 am

anominous,

I found “Roundsberg’s” concerns about the report fascinating, too. I thought it odd, however, that he didn’t already know. His he his own attorney? Apparently, if he went into that room with detectives, huh? And we all know what they say about being your own attorney…. “…one has a fool for a client”…..

I would also like to know why the Hand County law enforcement official, who appeared at the scene, didn’t see the flashlight. It’s time for the FBI to investigate the initial accident investigation. There was either an initial cover-up or per incompetence at the scene.

#41 VSG on 02.24.21 at 10:42 am

“Is” and “pure” 😉

#42 l3wis on 02.24.21 at 10:51 am

Mike, watch the interview then you can debate the issue. He was on the internet in his phone reading articles when he hit Boever, that’s worse than DUI. He claims to not see a mans head go thru the windshield. Also Republicans are leading the impeachment no Dems.

#43 rufusx on 02.24.21 at 10:57 am

Mtr. Zitterisch, “I simply stated NO ONE ever asks the question that needs to be entertained here; What was the reason for Mr Boever walking down a public highway @ 10:30 PM.”

And does having one reason over another; or no particular reason at all make Mr. Boever “deserving” of having been hit and killed by an inattentive driver? Of course not. Whatever reason there was that he was walking there makes no difference whatsoever. .

So WHY do you ask? Well, – it is OBVIOUS it is simply a rgetorical PLOY on your part – to try to shift the BLAME onto Mr. Boever for his own demise. In fact, you go into great detail about the processes you would like to use to do that.

All of the stuff you ask for about Mr. Boever’s previous behavior is just that. You ar looking for a way to shift the blame for Mr. Boever’s death onto him p- and away from the AG.

Simply using a few hundred words to do so rather to just a few, does not disguise your intent. It’s OBVIOUS. Deny it all you like. It will do you no good.

#44 Very Stable Genius on 02.24.21 at 11:04 am

“p.s – I use my actual NAME, not a fake pretend name aka Very Stable Genius (hiding behind a screen name).”

Well, it’s actually an anonymous name, which is protected by the First Amendment. The Federalist Papers were first written by anonymous authors, too, and if such acts are good enough for some of our founding fathers, then it’s good enough for me.

Oh, and let’s touch on this quote by Mike, too:

“The FAMILY has no case against him for manslaughter, let alone can show any proof of facts that Jason stalked and killed Mr Boever.”

Actually, no “FAMILY” would ever have such a case for manslaughter, because no “FAMILY” can charge someone else with a criminal offense. Only a prosecutor can do that. Once again Mike confuses civil with criminal.

Plus, when Mike writes of stalking and killing in that comment, he uses them as a modifier to manslaughter, but with manslaughter you only need to prove the intent for recklessness, you do not have to prove the intent to kill. If you could prove the latter, then it would actually be first degree murder.

#45 rufusx on 02.24.21 at 11:12 am

Zitterich – and then you follow that up with this

“Only a negligent person would find himself walking down a dark winding road at 10 PM.”

There is no way you can viably deny that is a blatant transparent effort of victim blaming.

#46 "Woodstock" on 02.24.21 at 11:12 am

“‘a screen name’?” “Should VSG join the Screen Actors Guild?”… “Oh, and what kind of batteries were in that flashlight?”…. “They must have been Eveready, huh?”…

#47 anominous on 02.24.21 at 11:14 am

Hey Zitterich, u 4got to ad this peice of evidence 4 ur case:

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/10/06/deer-glasses_wide-40baa30413415d19d6b635dc82bd6471ae15b039.jpg?s=1400

#48 Mike Lee Zitterich on 02.24.21 at 12:01 pm

Scott,

In all sense of purpose, and in order to respectfully respect you, I totally get it, if he was ‘distracted; by all means, charge him with the same fine, or penalty that we all get charged with.

I have watched the videos, all I see is a man coming clean, stating his side of the events that occurred.

Scott … IF he says he did not see a mans head come thru his windshield, that is his point of view, and whom are we to judge his side of the story, none of us were there that fateful night.

With all due respect, I have tried to be as respectful as I can, honestly – When you are busy driving, and ‘we’ are also trying to change the radio station, or even look at our phone/internet whatever, “WE” ALL do it mind it from time to time, hopefully NOT in traffic, but on a lonely, public highway with hardly no traffic, ‘we’ often let our guard down and glance at our phones, let alone make a phone call.

The part I am getting at Scott, is that some in this community wish for man to be punished so greatly, for an ‘act’ that we all have done time and time again even with a law or code put in place.

He says his phone was turned off, maybe, and maybe not, even if he glanced at his phone for a split second in time, things happen.

He also says he was thinking of pending actions he has to deal with over the next 24 hours; that alone, plus your mind wandering, can also lead you to become distracted enough to where your not totally focused on the road. I know, been there myself. And sometimes, you slightly allow the car to veer to the left or right without even thinking of it. Your mind wanders.

As for only Republicans bringing forth impeachment articles, mind you, I have thought for quite sometime, that even the republicans in this State are, well, RINOS , republican in name only, I have quite a few issues with many of them, especially with the COVID policies.

I have driven down the road a ton of times, only to have squirrells, raccoons, dogs, cats, all cross my path also, always at a moment in time, “YOU” dont even see them, how can I blame Jason for not seeing what hit him?

I am probally the “most conservative person” on this page, so much so, I do not want government in my life. I will never support any law that gives government more power over the people, let alone speak out against any law that currently does so.

I apologize if some of my comments seem demanizing, that is not what I am tryign to do, but to sit here and countlessly be told I am wrong, when none of us have the god honest facts, I am sorry….

If “WE” are going 65-70 mph on a public highway,and someone hits u you, happens so fast, while you are trying to control the car, can you honestly say “YOU” can easily see what you hit? Be Honest Please.

Now I agree with you on a number of issues, we disagree on others, this is one of those times, and I respect that, I do.

I do not know what will happen, but I do know this – JASON RAVSNBORG has been a very good “Attorney General, in doing everything to protect the Constitution, both the U.S and the State Constitution. Even where it may have interfered with Kristi Noem’s agenda.

You have to admit, Jason is probally the most “conservative” Constitutionalist Attorney General we have had in quite sometime.

I am sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way,

Mike Zitterich

#49 FeelingBlueInARedState on 02.24.21 at 12:41 pm

Mike

“Jason Ravnsborg is completely innocent of any charges he killed a man, simple as that…”

This kinda’ sounds like a backward version of the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument.

#50 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 02.24.21 at 2:21 pm

If Mike was a defense attorney in a rape trial, he would obsess on the victim’s mini-skirt.

#51 Fear Further & Loathing on 02.24.21 at 2:42 pm

Speaking of “Politicians In Cars Getting Into Trouble”, Fanne Foxe has died:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/fanne-foxe-dies/2021/02/24/87c04e6e-5e4c-11ea-b014-4fafa866bb81_story.html

If only Henry Ford knew what he started. The Amish, however, get it, or do they?

#52 D@ily Spin on 02.24.21 at 3:54 pm

Ok, I’ll be #50. Anymore it’s hard to distinguish between government and organized crime. The media has become sensation without accuracy. Who’s responsible for removing someone from office? Noem is up for re-election. She should stay home and handle this instead of flying around 50 states in our airplane. Now she’s gone to Mira Largo to snuggle with Trumps.

#53 scott on 02.24.21 at 5:07 pm

mike z should get his law degree. he’d be as effective in the court room as the current attorney general.

#54 Lee Byrum on 02.24.21 at 6:02 pm

Mike Lee Zitterich….
Fact, Jason Ravnsborg clicked on an article on his phone 1 minute before impact
Fact, He hit Mr. Boever on the shoulder of the road.
Fact, He lied when he said he hit him in the middle of the road
Fact, He walked right by Joe Boevers body (the night of the accident) and illuminating flashlight which was 2 feet onto the grass and did nothing
Fact, Joe Boever’s glasses were sitting in the passenger seat and AG claims he didn’t see them.
Fact, Joe Boever’s face went through the AG’s windshield yet claims he didn’t know what he hit
Fact, He lied to investigators

Of course the AG didn’t intend for any of this to happen. But he has not been truthful about it, and evidence strongly suggests he obstructed.

#55 Very Stable Genius on 02.24.21 at 10:41 pm

Janklow knew better, but wouldn’t it have been fascinating to watch Janklow go through two interviews with detectives? And he could have still sandbagged his diabetes affirmative defense until his December trial, however.

(“Governor, or Congressman, why did you pass a RV on the right shoulder of the road as you were approaching an intersection with a STOP sign?”… )

#56 Mike Lee Zitterich on 02.25.21 at 1:26 pm

The Attorney General having a special obligation to the People and the Laws of the State of South Dakota, Jason Ravnsborg must be removed from such office for his crimes or misdemeanors in office causing the death of Joseph Boever. – has he not made every attempt to uphold the law? Afterall he did NOT run from the incident, he has fully been cooperative with law enforcement, he has opened himself up to questioning, investigations, let alone, he called 9-1-1 as soon as possible, which by law; that is the minimum requirement of the law any citizen is to do;

Did not Jason Ravnsborg not fully comply with the laws of this state within a reasonable time period; did he not report the accident to law enforcement immediately? Did he not comply with the following statute below:

S.D.C.L 32-34-7

And did NOT the Sheriff comply with the statute:

S.D.C.L 32-34-10

Let’s Define the word Accident shall we – an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury; an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Lets also define the word Misdemeanor shall we – a minor wrongdoing; a non indictable offense, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony. A misdemeanor is any “lesser” criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than more serious felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions and regulatory offences. Typically misdemeanors are punished with monetary fines or community service.

How many times have any of you ever driven at night in your past, late nights, early mornings, is your vision perfect in the wee hours of the morning, after a long days work, or activity. Have any of you ever been driving long hours at night, where you must remain focused on the road ahead, where it is so dark, your eyes get tirey, watery, play tricks on you, that it does often cause a sense of distraction, especially if you have a lot on your mind, that it causes you to become tunnel visioned, so much so, you do not recognize your surroundings on the left or right side of the road.

I have, I have driven hours at night coming home from motorsports events, there were times I swear I seen things that were not there, shadows in the distance, to yes, a flash right before your eyes of a deer or other animal or object right before you that may or may not make you swerve outside your lane. Could this have been what happened that night with the Attorney General?

Perhaps he is telling the proper time line he best recalls, perhaps he is telling the truth, he never saw or even recognized any obhject, animal, human being running up torwards his car; I amazed he was able to keep his composure as much as he did, being able to control the car to a stop seconds after impact. I would be startled, nervous wreck, stunned myself.

Accidents happen when you least expect them, you can’t fault people when they do, especially when someone, as the Attorney General has had far and few of them thru-out his life time.

I was NOT gonna respond again, but..a few assumptions and comments have been made about me or my comments,

I simply think some of you should look in the mirror and ask yourself – Who am I …

I recently sent a email to at least 50 legislators in a quest to urge them to VOTE NO on impeachment for the very reasons I stated in comments thru out this thread; here is one such response by two legislators –

“Thank you for reaching out. I absolutely do not agree with the filing and even more so do not agree with proceeding. The AG has only been charged, not convicted. He still has his day in court to prove innocence. This undoubtedly will have a negative affect on getting an impartial jury if he requests one.”
– Rep. Kevin Jensen

“Thanks for that. Yesterday, I formally asked the AG to investigate the Governor’s use of the state airplane. I’d like to see if he is able to do his job. His actions on this will influence my opinion and vote on impeachment.”
– Reynold Nesiba

So this is NOT so much an open, shut case, and I believe legislators do take in the over all context of both sides of this INCIDENT of which I have been stating above…

They want to learn of Mr Boever’s role in the accident, as well as learn the full detail of Mr Ravnsborg role, before any hard core stance is taken.

– Mike Zitterich

(THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THIS ITEM)

#57 Lee Byrum on 02.25.21 at 6:42 pm

Zitterich,

It’s not the ACCIDENT that has people unhappy. It is everything else. It’s VERY HARD TO BELIEVE WHAT HE IS CLAIMING IN THE INTERVIEWS.

Also, if your son, daughter, mother or brother were to be involved in an automobile accident where another party was responsible. Would you be OK with them stopping down at the police station 17 hours later for a toxicology?

#58 Fearing Some More on 02.26.21 at 2:21 pm

Maybe Barney had to find his toxicology kit.

#59 Lee Byrum on 02.26.21 at 9:21 pm

Zitterich on here bragging about using his real name. Yes, he’s proud of that. Also highlights just how much of an ass kiss he is. Obviously trying to gain favor with the SDGOP for whatever reason. His level of ass kissing has him blind to objectivity.

#60 The Guy From Guernsey on 02.28.21 at 12:16 pm

Lee,
I think you have mistaken Mr Zitterich and his intentions with some of the ball-washers (e.g. ‘Charlie Hoffman’, ‘Ed Randazzo’, ‘Lee Schoenbeck’) who comment on another blog originating from South Dakota.
Generally, this is not the correct blog to find people currying favor with the ruling political establishment (which in Sioux Falls is actually RINO-for-the-purpose-of-getting-elected). The exception, I suppose, would be GOP (Good ol’ Purchase-a-burger).

Leave a Comment