Even if AG Ravnsborg hit a tree in the road, he is still guilty of a crime

So here comes the Hail Mary from his defense team;

In the paperwork that was filed on July 9. Ravnsborg’s attorneys say that Boever had told friends that his preferred method of suicide would be to “throw himself in front of a car”.

Even if any or all of this is true and provable in a court of law, it doesn’t change the fact that whether Jason hit a tree in the middle of the road or Boever, Jason was web surfing while driving which is against the law, and not to be cold, but Jason hit ‘something’ in the road while he was violating the law, and that is what matters here. He should have seen the obstruction and at least tried to avoid it, but he couldn’t because he was distracted. Investigators have pointed this out.

Not only is Jason not qualified to operate a motor vehicle, he can’t even come up with a solid opinion without retracting it as he did today with Tribal Medical Marijuana cards. Any AG, or lawyer should know, you shouldn’t say anything until you absolutely certain. I am still baffled how he got elected.


#1 John on 07.10.21 at 7:14 am

That is not correct. The state has even said he was NOT on his phone at the time of the accident.

This is justa tragic situation especially if the family is even expressing doubts, I think that speaks volumes. The stories I read said a family member said Joe had talked about throwing himself in front of a car as his preferred method of suicide…what is your preferred method of suicide? I know I have never talked about one….who does that?

#2 l3wis on 07.10.21 at 10:12 am

John, if you have not watched the interviews with investigators yet, you need to. They have laid out the groundwork. It is nearly impossible to go from surfing the web, to hitting a person, stopping, pulling to the side of the road, getting out of your vehicle, assessing the situation, then getting out the phone and calling 911 in 30-60 seconds. He was on his phone when he hit Joe, that is obvious.

#3 D@ily Spin on 07.10.21 at 2:15 pm

Myself and others I’ve known realize such matters can last years. An AG especially can have this last at least 8 years. The judge can’t help but get the facts and excuses confused. If there’s resolution here, it’ll be from the civil case. He’ll be found at fault with a monetary award to the family. He’ll take bankruptcy. Legal aspects will get dropped. It’s another Janklow or OJ situation. His political life is over but he’ll write a tell all book and smuggle the profit to the Caymans. We’re he a minority, a woman, or even just average he’d have gotten life without parole.

#4 John on 07.10.21 at 5:33 pm

So the prosecutors are lying? Huh?

They said there was no evidence he was on the phone at the time of the accident. They went into detail at the press conference when they announced the charges.

I think your tree story has a few holes in it.

#5 Precinct Committeeman on 07.10.21 at 9:10 pm

Is trying to hold off Marty Jackley for the AG nomination considered a method of suicide?

#6 Mike Lee Zitterich on 07.11.21 at 12:30 pm

John makes very valid points, this is a very tragic situation. But lets be clear, vehicle vs pedestrian incidents are quite common in South Dakota, let alone around the Country, so common, ‘we’ alone have had no less than what, 6 such cases in the past twelve months alone.

Not once has any driver who has hit a pedestrian, a bicyclist, a motorcyclist ever goes to prison or is charged with Homicide except for in very rare sitations where the driver is DRUNK or impaired by DRUGS, or there is proof the driver was RECKLESS DRIVING.

The entire Motor Vehicle Code is written by “insurance companies” to cover the liability of events that may or may not occur while on public roads vs Motor Vehicles.

In reality, any Pedestrian who remotely steps foot on a Public Highway or Street is in fact in essence committing suicide, especially where you do so in a position of where you may not be in full control.

Thru “Discovery” these types of claims come into the fray of conversation, so somewhere in Mr Boever’s past he must have spoke on the thought of wanting to throw himself in front of a moving vehicle. Sadly.

You all know that thru “Discovery”, Mr Boever’s last 24 hours of his life was going to be brought out into the open, from his own “Motor Vehicle Incident” just hours prior, where he was distracted, crossed white line, drove in ditch, damaged someones property, let alone his own, and it will come out that HE never called Law Enforcement to report such incident, which places him in violation of the very law itself.

The very moment that Mr Boever made the decision to step out that front door, walk down that highway, to get his truck, the two separate incidents then became “One Common Accident”, and now you have a problem if you are the FAMILY of Mr Boever.

What was his ‘state of mind” that night, especially since his own family told him to stay home, until the next morning, was he hiding something he did not want Law Enforcement to see? Was he drunk? Was their Alcohol in the truck? Who knows. That is what Discovery is for.

Most likely, the so called charges against Mr. Ravsnborg will ultimately offset the charges applied to Mr Boever in his earlier incident, and this becomes a mute point.

How do you expect the JUDGE to rule, let alone form an opinion on two men that may have both violated specific codes in the Motor Vehicle Code?

This is an INSURANCE CLAIM 100%, there is NO Crime here except for two men causing an accident, a thing that occurs by “Chance”. If one is at fault, both are at fault.

It now becomes who is responsible for Damages, 100% likely the BOEVER FAMILY is sueing for $25,000 dollars, the maximum a person can sue as per the statutes in this case, sure you can sue for more, but those additional expenses got to show ties to the accident.

What i see happening, is the judge will place blame on both men, and this becomes a 50-50 result. The BOEVER family will not get their $25,000 check, if they get anything at all, will be far less, most likely $12,500 dollars, cause Mr Boever will be charged with the same misdemeanors as the state charged Mr Ravsnborg.

#7 l3wis on 07.11.21 at 4:18 pm

1) You can’t charge a dead man with a crime, and he certainly cannot testify.

2) All of these defenses are moot considering that it has been proven by investigators that Jason was on his phone, or just put it down at impact and he hit Joe in the shoulder. I guess if Joe was trying to kill himself why wasn’t he walking in the middle of the road without a flashlight? Well he wasn’t. I hope the judge is quick to throw this defense in the toilet where it belongs. Jason is a despicable human being.

#8 The Guy From Guernsey on 07.11.21 at 7:11 pm

aaah, those fingerprints again.
It looks like the out-of-state crisis management firm hired by Jason quickly led with a response.
To the initial comment by “John'” – The story spun by the States Attorneys in which is spliced precise GPS coordinates and exact time (to the second!), not to mention marries into the story, the exact moment that Ravnsborg struck a pedestrian, is just that. A story.
A story crafted to acknowledge the accident, but protect Ravnsborg from legal accountability.
The only people who place credence in that story are Ravnsborg, Ravnsborg’s family and those who are paid to believe the story (States Attorney Sovall and States Attorney Moore, as well as the crisis management firm hired by Ravnsborg).

#9 The Guy From Guernsey on 07.11.21 at 7:30 pm

“John” has upped the ante in the assassination of the character of Joe Boever. No longer satisfied to simply infer that Joe somehow deserved to die because his truck had been incapacitated earlier in the day, John plants the vicious innuendo that, “meh, Joe probably intended to commit suicide. Poor guy. Bad state of mind. And drunk too. I’ve read stories that even his family has doubts.”
THAT is despicable!
There is plenty of sand in Utah, “John”. I think you know what you can do with it.

#10 The Guy From Guernsey on 07.11.21 at 7:32 pm

… anxiously awaiting further contributions from Ravnsborg’s crisis management squad.
Bring it,
You aren’t helping Mr Ravnsborg’s cause. At all.

#11 l3wis on 07.11.21 at 8:04 pm

I have been told by others in the law profession that he did to one thing right, hire an attorney who is good at cleanup.


#12 Dead in the Ditch on 07.12.21 at 7:33 am

There is the contention the dismembered body of Joe and flashlight were under the car when the it was moved by Jason and the Sheriff. This is why Jason and Sheriff were so close to Joe. They were on top of him separated by the car floor. Jason hit then drug Joe under the car. When the car was moved what was left of Joe disengaged from Jason’s car.

#13 JM on 07.12.21 at 12:57 pm

So now the tow truck driver is in on it also? As Biden would say come on man!

If you listen closely to 911 tape the dispatcher assigned who came out-the sheriff— not the AG—the dispatcher could have easily sent someone else. That blows a huge hole in that conspiracy theory for me.

#14 The Guy From Guernsey on 07.12.21 at 9:09 pm

Counsel for the defendant has reputation for mounting a vigorous, if not interesting defense on behalf of his clients.

#15 Mike Lee Zitterich on 07.13.21 at 11:31 am


1969 – the COURT imposed misdemeanor charges on a pedestrian who had died in a automobile accident for his role in the accident. Nearly the same type of accident here, except the pedestrian was on the right hand side of road. However;

“In all actions brought to recover damages for injuries to a person or to his property caused by the negligence of another, the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery when the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant but in such case, the damages shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of plaintiff’s contributory negligence.” Ch. 149, Laws 1964.

As pointed out in Nugent v. Quam, 82 S.D. 583, 152 N.W.2d 371, there can be no application of this law unless both parties are guilty of negligence proximately causing or contributing to the injuries complained of. The negligence of both parties must, therefore, be first considered and determined separately by the common standard of the reasonably prudent man. If the parties are both found to be causally negligent, the jury then determines if the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant.

“For this purpose it seems not only helpful but necessary to start with the standard of care of the ordinarily reasonable and prudent man, not used as an absolute standard of conduct for either one separately, but for a determination of the extent to which each fell below the standard for use in comparing the quantum of want of ordinary care exercised by the plaintiff with the quantum of want of ordinary care exercised by the defendant.” Judge Burns (1964 ruling)


#16 Gary R Phord on 07.13.21 at 8:31 pm

Why did he have the flashlight on? The flashlight was supposed to help him with the stalled pickup, if no car drove by – on that dark quite road – for him to commit suicide with, right? A lit flashlight, however, could foil the plan, would it not? I guess Jason isn’t diabetic like our former governor, is he? #CokeSteakBakedPotatoDefense?