Press "Enter" to skip to content

Boever Had a Flashlight When Distracted Ravnsborg Killed Him at Ditch’s Edge

On September 12, around 10:30 p.m., when Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg called 911 to report his vehicular crash, he told the dispatcher that he had “hit something… in the middle of the road.”

Like many of his fellow Republicans, Jason Ravnsborg appears to have trouble telling the difference between “middle of the road” and “far right“:

Officer John Berndt, South Dakota Highway Patrol, Investigator's Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Report: driver Jason Ravsnborg and pedestrian Joe Boever 2020.09.12, published 2020.11.02.
Officer John Berndt, South Dakota Highway Patrol, Investigator’s Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Report: driver Jason Ravsnborg and pedestrian Joe Boever 2020.09.12, published 2020.11.02.

Today, the South Dakota Highway Patrol made public the crash report for the incident in which Jason Ravnsborg killed Joe Boever with his car. The report includes three key, horrible, damning details.

First is the above diagram of the crash site less than a half-mile west of Highmore. On the basis of multiple meticulous visits to the crash site, the South Dakota Highway Patrol has produced a crash-scene diagram showing Ranvsborg’s car entirely in the right-hand shoulder at the time he hit Boever. The diagram shows Boever walking closer to the ditch than to the driving lane.

Second is one word: distracted. South Dakota Highway Patrol Officer John Berndt says Jason Ravnsborg was “distracted” at the wheel:

Unit #1 was traveling westbound on US Hwy 14. Unit #1 driver was distracted. Unit #1 entered the north shoulder while traveling westbound. Unit #2 (pedestrian) was walking on the north shoulder. Unit #2 was struck by unit #1. Unit #2 was carrying a light. The exact time of crash is still under investigation. The time of law enforcement arrival is estimated as the responding sheriff did not advise dispatch when he arrived. The pedestrian was transported from the scene by the coroner. Information found during the investigation indicates a driver distraction. The specific distraction is still under investigation [Berndt, SDHP, narrative, 2020.11.02].

Driver was distracted. Jason Ravnsborg was distracted. Jason Ravnsborg did not have his eyes on the road when he hit and killed Joe Boever.

You likely noticed the third key detail, one more word: light.

Joe Boever was carrying a light. He was walking at the edge of the shoulder, close to the ditch. He was trying to get to his truck that he’d left in the ditch earlier that night. The police report suggests he was trying to get there safely.

And distracted driver Jason Ravnsborg drifted fully into the shoulder and killed Joe Boever.

Ravnsborg lied at least once in his September 9-1-1 phone call, a call that already contradicted the story he told on September 14 in his only public statement since he killed Joe Boever.

I am bothered that Ravsnborg lied. I am irked that our Governor Noem can look at these facts and not call for Ravnsborg to resign. I am annoyed that this killer is still drawing his $118,603.03 annual salary from us taxpayers.

But I am horrified, and gravely sad for Boever’s family, at the plain fact that Jason Ravnsborg killed a man… and that so far, he has done nothing to atone for his fatal crime.

Jason Ravnsborg, you are morally obliged to resign immediately from your position as South Dakota’s chief law enforcement officer. If you cannot take responsibility for your fatal violation of the law, you cannot be trusted and you does not deserve to be in charge of holding other criminals responsible for their crimes.

Jason, you killed a man. Resign now, and prepare to face the judge.


  1. grudznick 2020-11-02 18:35

    The report says “light”, not “flashlight.” I only point this out because if Mr. Boever was pointing a flashlight west walking that direction, it would be harder to see than if Mr. Boever was pointing a flashlight east, walking against the oncoming traffic.

    This in no way changes what Mr. Ravnsborg should be charged with or that Mr. Ravnsborg is at fault for this terrible event, but “light” could mean a kerosene lantern, a Coleman (r) LP torch, or yes, more likely a flashlight which would provide a more directional beam.

  2. jerry 2020-11-02 18:38

    I think Ravnsborg was intoxicated. I have never seen a deer carrying a flashlight. The country sheriff is complicit on this as well and should resign and face consequences for his actions.

    I, for one, am impressed with the Highway Patrol and their work on this. You know it must have been difficult. Ravnsborg needs to resign immediately.

  3. grudznick 2020-11-02 18:46

    Mr. jerry, grudznick bets you a fancy beer and a shot that Mr. Ravnsborg wasn’t intoxicated.

    Not part of the bet, but I’d guess he was playing on his fancy cell phone.

  4. 96Tears 2020-11-02 19:00

    Is there a law on South Dakota’s books that prohibits distracted driving and seeks a penalty?

    I’m not buying Ravnsborg’s alibi that he thought he may have hit a deer. I think he knew he hit a person. The most likely scenario is he knew, panicked, phoned 911, lied about a deer in the middle of the road and went home to Pierre to think how he’s going to get out of this mess. Otherwise, you’d have to take his word for it as he presented it to the 911 dispatch.

    I am curious about the pictures of skidmarks and a diagram of when they started and where the point of impact was declared. I’m also curious exactly what the “distraction” was.

    That sheriff’s story is also still fishy.

  5. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-11-02 19:00

    I’ll edit that, Grudz… but as you note, any kind of light other than a flashlight is highly unlikely.

  6. Mark Anderson 2020-11-02 19:03

    Jeez, I grew up in Highmore, know the sheriff, met my wife at that same bar in Redfield. Gosh if I had run over someone in Highmore, do you think the sheriff would have loaned me his car to drive home and test my blood alcohol level the next day? What kind of cronyism do you boys in South Dakota have these days?

  7. Barbara 2020-11-02 19:09

    The estimated travel speed, 65 mph, is based on “driver statement” according to the report (p.2).
    I imagined there would be less subjective sources for this important information given the length of the investigation. If Ravnsborg was distracted and speeding, a plausible scenario given his past history, it would add a fourth damning detail.

  8. Mike Livingston 2020-11-02 19:26

    I think and I guess, really? That doesn’t even rise to circumstantial, on the other hand putting 15 hours between incident of negligence and the sobriety test strains credulity.

  9. jerry 2020-11-02 19:31

    Soon after tomorrow, Ravnsborg will no longer be needed as the electoral vote from the State of South Dakota. Probably then it would be a good time for the GNOem bus to run over him.

  10. Bob Newland 2020-11-02 19:33

    grudznick, you intolerable POS. Your comments NEVER add to the discussion, but this time you just act like you’re playing in the beam of a flashlight, much as a boredom-addled housecat does. Why Cory tolerates your miserably juvenile crap, I do not know.

  11. bearcreekbat 2020-11-02 19:46

    96 Tears, I previously linked to a couple of state statutes that appear to provide a basis for a criminal charge:

    I didn’t see any general prohibition of distracted driving, although that seems to be the justification for SDCL 32-26-47.1, which prohibits driving while using an “electronic device.” I also note that SDCL 32-26-49 provides

    The Department of Public Safety shall expend lawfully appropriated funds to develop and communicate a distracted drivers public awareness campaign.

    On the other hand, this statute appears to explicitly cover Ravnsborg’s conduct as reported by investigators:

    SDCL 32-26-6. Lane driving required–Changing lanes–Violation as misdemeanor.

    On a roadway divided into lanes, a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and may not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

    The commission of a misdemeanor that results in the unjustified death of a person seems like it would support a manslaughter charge.

    Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing that results either from criminal negligence or the commission of a low-level criminal act such as a misdemeanor. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from other forms of homicide because it does not require deliberation or premeditation, or intent. Because neither of these mental states is required, involuntary manslaughter is the lowest level category of homicide.

    Perhaps that was the trigger for Bill Janklow’s second degree manslaughter conviction and prison sentence – along with manslaughter, he was reportedly convicted of speeding, running a stop sign and reckless driving, all misdemeanors.

  12. grudznick 2020-11-02 19:49

    Bob, my good friend, calm down and take delight that you’re going to get legal weed tomorrow. Get a grip on yourownself.

  13. T 2020-11-02 20:13

    Even if it was his cellphone light that’s flashlight icon on your phone still bright enough. Speaking from experience have put on many miles night or day you are scanning rapidly from side to side. Especially at night. Distraction is a
    Word that is covering something up. If your distracted and experienced driver like he is, you know when you hit shoulder. You immediately correct this and become focused and correct your driving. How long did he drive on shoulder? Intoxication you’re slower or worse yet falling asleep you don’t correct.
    Even this report is fishy. Just like the sheriffs report. Condolences to the family, may they get the truth

  14. Debbo 2020-11-02 20:14

    Cory, I asked you this on another post.

    I need to know if your plan is to allow grudz to continue his harassing and misogynistic behavior towards women here and me in particular. You tried to blame the rest of us commenters for reacting to Grudz’ behavior. This was my response.

    “Cory, you have the power to stop him. It’s on you, not us. Grudz is a proven stalker and misogynist, yet you allow him to continue on DFP. What does that say about you?”

    So, will you take any action or are you going to allow his behavior to continue? This is not about free speech or open exchange of ideas. Stalking and harassment bear no relation to those issues.

    I need to know. If he’s going to be allowed to continue stalking and harassing me, I’m not going to put up with it. Being mistreated is not the price I should have to pay to participate here. If he’s allowed to continue, I’m done with DFP. I’ve been here since the day you opened Madville Times, but I will not accept abusive behavior.

    It’s on you. Stand up for women like you say you do. Here’s your opportunity to match words to actions.

  15. Sharon Vestal 2020-11-02 20:55

    Does this image indicate that Boever was walking east? If he was walking east and carrying a light, then Ravnsborg had to be very distracted to not see him.

  16. leslie 2020-11-02 20:57

    Cory stung stupid grdz this a.m. so this is the best grdz lice comb can do. Otherwise…;

    This is the most serious, saddest blog post i can remember here. So, so sorry for this extended family.

  17. Jenny 2020-11-02 21:12

    I have made complaints against Grudz also, and I support you, Debbo. We all get sick and tired of his harassing abusive behavior.

    Why don’t YOU get a grip, Grudz? Newland doesn’t come on here everday harassing people like you do most of the time.

  18. leslie 2020-11-02 21:13

    Contradictory witness statements as to liquor intake leaves this: “The exact time of crash is still under investigation.”

    Apparently the timeline doesn’t quite work. And the Warthog “door gunner” did not seem to know where he was on the 911 call which would otherwise precisely tie down time of “negligent manslaughter” (likely a 10 yr felony). Jason and Trump may serve time together.

    All cynicism aside i feel horrible for the consequences for all involved that night outside Highmore. I think i was at a prom there once.

    Btw, sheitcan grdz.

  19. Jenny 2020-11-02 21:18

    I had heard that a driver on highway 14 made a report a few days after the crash that she saw a pedestrian walking eastbound on the north shoulder that night before the accident happened. If anyone can verify this. I was assuming it would have been Boever and he would have been walking against traffic the correct way.

  20. Sharon Vestal 2020-11-02 21:24

    Jenny–I remember hearing that as well. I feel like it might have been somewhere in the comments on DFP. I looked a little, but I couldn’t find it. I also feel like the diagram may indicate that he was walking east?

  21. Chris S. 2020-11-02 21:29

    Grudz adds nothing to this blog other than his “tee-hee! I’m so naughty!” attempts at humor which are really just harassment at worst, fake both-siderism at best. It’s really tiresome and gross. Is there a limit already?

  22. Chuck-Z 2020-11-02 22:31

    My bet is that the distraction was his cell phone. Some people have serious addiction issues with those things. Studies have shown they can be worse than drunken driving.

    I feel as though the side of the road which the victim was walking is irrelevant, he was obviously far on the shoulder. Even if he was walking west, perhaps he turned to face the car with his “light” to signal the driver to his presence. Considering how far on the shoulder the victim was, Ravnsborg must have been seriously distracted, enough so he may not have seen anything and was only alerted after impact.

    Ravnsborg’s Taurus recognized the event as serous enough to shut down the car. Perhaps the “black box” or the fuel pump shut off disabled the car. Otherwise, I bet he would have driven away from the scene. This does mean that the event was captured by the “black box”. This will indicate speed at moment of impact, when braking occurred, along with every bit of info the car is capable of capturing. None of this has been disclosed to us yet.

    He obviously lied on his 911 call. Again, I think he would have preferred to drive away and get his story straight, prior to calling in the event.

    Agree that Grudz is a POS that adds nothing to discussions. I have been scrolling past his BS for years and feel better having done so.

  23. Mike Livingston 2020-11-02 23:17

    If this case does not meet the bar, no pun intended, for vehicular homicide the legislators need to change the law. I have no evidence to support my theory but the circumstances surrounding this incident strongly suggest that the AG was impaired when he left the bar after 11 pm to drive to Pierre and subsequently fell asleep, I don’t know how else to explain the skid marks. At that point it could be construed as manslaughter.

    Then comes the cover-up, of course no one in the bar would be willing to give evidence against the AG for fear of retribution from the republicant leadership. For the head of the enforcement division of the Dept. of Justice, he seems to be dumber than a box of hammers, any junior prosecutor should be able to punch holes in his alibi if the killer ever gets indicted. Ha who am I kidding?

    The Boever family deserves better and the citizens of South Dakota deserve public servants that serve the public rather than themselves.

  24. Debbo 2020-11-02 23:22

    Thanks for the support.


  25. ds 2020-11-03 01:30

    Note the “Driver Contributing Circumstances” listed in the STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA INVESTIGATOR’S MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORT:
    15-Failure to keep in proper lane.

    Also the exact words in Jason RAVNSBORG 911 call: “It was right in the roadway and…”.

    So was it RIGHT in the roadway, or right in the ROADWAY?

  26. Nick Nemec 2020-11-03 06:47

    I would like to clear up one point. In the days after the crash I learned of a witness and contacted her. This lady was very willing to talk to me, she is a Highmore resident, who was driving eastbound toward Highmore when she saw a pedestrian also EASTBOUND walking on the NORTH shoulder of the road, ie walking facing traffic. Since it was late she remembers looking to see what time it was and is adamant that it was 10:20 PM and the pedestrian was heading EAST when she saw him.

    Joe Boever was doing everything and more that is required of a pedestrian walking along a roadway.

  27. Nick Nemec 2020-11-03 06:49

    Deer are notorious for carrying flashlights in order to blind drivers just before leaping across a highway.

  28. Jenny 2020-11-03 07:01

    I’m not going to get my hopes up that they’re going to press charges on murderer Ravnsborg. Price made sure to talk about driver distraction not always being a reason to charge someone in SD.
    I think they are preparing us for the bad news that SDs AG will not be charged with anything. They don’t want to let it out all at once, piece by piece is better they’re thinking. They are hoping their investigation announcement the day before a big election will be lost in the media.

    Why not answer what kind of light Boever had?
    Why not answer which way Boever was walking?
    Why not ask Ravnsborg to go on personal leave?
    Why not answer what specific distraction Ravnsborg is guilty of?
    Why is the toxicology report of Boever taking so long? Why won’t they release it?
    Why not release the cell phone records of Ravnsbog?
    Why is the driving speed of Ravnsborg being kept so secret?
    Protecting their AG at all means possible until the end.
    Do your jobs, Price and Noem – answer to the people. These questions should not be top secret, it’s been almost two months.

  29. Richard Schriever 2020-11-03 07:27

    jerry – the Electoral College doesn’t meet and vote until December – AFTER all votes are counted and certified by the various states.

    despite what the media wants to relate to you, or whatever any conceding candidate might say, there is NEVER a real winner to be had on election day. It is a long drawn out deliberate process.

  30. DaveFN 2020-11-03 07:37

    “…carrying a light…”

    According to Ravnsborg, or….?

  31. Valerie 2020-11-03 07:44

    Jenny, I read about the witness in the, however I can not get back into the site to reread the article. It’s written by Stephen Lee. Have a look.

  32. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-11-03 07:57

    Jenny, I apologize again for turning to the political aspect of this horrible crime. But here goes:

    piece by piece seems counterproductive from a political perspective. Each piece they’ve dribbled out—the 9-1-1 call, now the police report—has only cast Ravnsborg in a worse light. The details they’ve withheld only stoke speculation. Even if I were in charge of the spin for the regime and wanted to keep the story from damaging our election chances, I wouldn’t dribble-dribble; I’d withhold all evidence until the absolute conclusion of the investigation, then dump it all at once, making it harder for people to read the whole story.

    I wonder if we have here a situation showing the political immaturity and spinelessness of the SDGOP. They coast on good branding and tradition, but when really bad things happen, they bumble around like amateurs, not knowing how to play real political hardball. Dragging out the release of information could be a wimpy ploy of ratcheting up pressure on Ravnsborg and hoping he’ll give in and resign. A real party boss wouldn’t tolerate this ongoing drag on the brand. A real party boss would drop the bomb on Ravnsborg, release all the information as soon as possible, tell him to step down from his post as AG and as Trump elector, and immediately install a successor (a real party boss would install Sara Frankenstein; Noem will push for someone who doesn’t challenge her power and spotlight, like Charles McGuigan).

  33. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-11-03 07:58

    Nick, can you say whether that Highmore witness has spoken to the SDHP?

  34. DaveFN 2020-11-03 08:09

    Corey, that doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility that Ravnsborg might have also told the SDHP as much, does it? Seems at this time we don’t really know.

  35. Jenny 2020-11-03 08:35

    What was found in Boever’s pickup? Could Joe Boever have been going to it to get meds, his cell phone, perhaps his wallet he had forgotten to take with him etc? He had a diagnosis of diabetes.

    Typical SD style top secret investigation. Release as little as you can, protect your own.

  36. jerry 2020-11-03 08:46

    True that Mr. Schriever, but we should be able to see very quickly that trump has been neutered, so much so that even a sycophant like GHOem can see it as well. If Ravnsborg is not charged right now, when Biden gets in, and a new AG takes the helm in Washington, I suspect that this case will be looked at hard on the Federal level. GNOem, will have to make that move before then.

  37. Eve Fisher 2020-11-03 09:30

    Yes, SD has distracted driving laws; it also has laws against vehicular homicide. Whether any of these will be enforced is yet to be seen.

  38. Jenny 2020-11-03 09:34

    Kristi looked tired from her Mar A Lago beach party.

  39. leslie 2020-11-03 10:02

    Ravnsborg’s replacement will be an unqualified political hack—not knowing how it gets filled, the administrative process.

  40. Buckobear 2020-11-03 10:49

    Eve —- Right you are. I’ve lost count of the number of cell phones I’ve seen glued to the ears of drivers motoring down the road (worse yet in parking lots).
    Laws that aren’t enforced become mere suggestions.
    Here in RC we need speed and red light cameras to help with this safety plague.

  41. Sharon Vestal 2020-11-03 11:19

    Nick–thank you for clarifying that Boever was walking east. I was certain that I had seen it somewhere before. I appreciate all that you have done to shine the light on this tragedy. I am so sorry for your loss.

  42. happy camper 2020-11-03 12:10

    I realize this topic is sensitive and based on my previous ill timing I was reluctant to post, but I think it’s important to try and see other perspectives.

    Imagine you had car trouble with your child at the same time and place. You hold your 6-year-olds hand, you have a flashlight, you explain to her you want to walk towards traffic so you are more aware of any threat coming toward you, in order to avoid that threat. As you see a car coming, would you continue to walk on the shoulder, cause it’s your legal right, pedestrians always have the right of way, or would you keep your hand with hers and tell her we are going to walk down into the ditch 15 or 20 feet away from the highway and let that car pass?

    Would you explain to her at night drivers can’t see, they aren’t expecting pedestrians, they might have been drinking or be an inexperienced driver, our flashlight observed at the last moment might startle them so we want to take the safer step of getting well off the highway.

    Now, imagine you didn’t do that, but walked the shoulder with your daughter. When you got home and the child explained to the other parent your actions, that night, minimal, there would probably be a discussion between the spouses and a later conversation with the child. Would you agree?

    As a general statement, men (especially when not caring for others) usually take more risk. Those risks are a choice. Legal or not for your own safety, shouldn’t you always be cautious?

    Isn’t this the argument you are making for wearing masks? That it is the safe thing to do. Isn’t it also the safe thing to get well off the highway and shoulder at night when drivers are not expecting to see you?

    Now imagine you are the driver on that same stretch of road. You see no cars. Might you check your cell phone? Have you never done so? Then looked up to realize you have shifted slightly in your lane? If you were looking down reading a text would you see a person? Or even a light. Which, we don’t know was bright, or even if he was using. It is possible Mr. Boever turned the light off to not distract the driver since he choose to stay on the shoulder, or to not draw attention to himself if he were not seeking a ride. Or maybe he was looking for a ride and that’s why he stayed on the shoulder, perhaps even thinking Ravnsborg was moving over to stop. There are things we don’t know, and may never know.

    Theoretically, does a person bear some responsibility for an accident, if, and I’m not saying that is the case here, because all the facts are not known, may not have acted in the most prudent manner?

  43. Paul 2020-11-03 12:32

    After 7 weeks, we get a copy of the police report that was written up the next day and nothing from the investigation itself. So much transparency. Can’t help but think that this was released on Monday in order to get the headlines buried under the wave of election news.

    The report is damning, as it confirms what the video evidence already showed – Ravnsborg struck a pedestrian on the shoulder and lied about it. My guess is they assume he was distracted because the only other alternative would be he was deliberately driving on the shoulder. There are rumble strips on that shoulder – you know when you’ve crossed onto it.

    If you kill a pedestrian while driving cold sober, isn’t that even more inexcusable than if you did it while drunk?

  44. Edwin Arndt 2020-11-03 12:37

    Well said, Happy Camper.

    For those of you calling this murder, get a grip. Murder requires intent.
    I have seen no evidence that Ravnsborg intended to kill anyone. He may be
    guilty of distracted driving, reckless driving, etc. This was indeed a tragic
    accident, from any perspective.

    Some of you commenting on this blog seem to wish some others should
    be banned from commenting. I’ve always thought that DFP was a forum
    for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. If some of you feel
    that you are not able to withstand the rough and tumble of robust discussion,
    you are certainly free to avoid taking part.

  45. jerry 2020-11-03 12:43

    Geesh, what a rabbit trail happy camper. Good news though, you did manage to get Mr.Arndt to follow it though.

    Imagine this, a 6 year old picks up his fathers gun and walks outside. Thinking he is playing, he pulls the gun up and pulls the trigger and kills a neighbor kid. You two want to blame the gun.

  46. DANA HANNA 2020-11-03 12:50

    I have no opinion as to whether the State’s Attorney General should or should not be charged with a criminal offense. That is because neither I nor any other member of the public has all the material facts as yet. I do have an opinion as to whether the State’s investigation into possible criminal conduct on the part of its Attorney General should have at least a semblance of impartiality and integrity. To maintain any credibility or appearance of fairness to the people of our state and to the family of the deceased victim, the decision whether to prosecute the Attorney General absolutely cannot be made by a State’s Attorney who is, as a matter of state law, under the supervisory authority of the man who is the subject of the criminal investigation.

    SDCL 1-11-1 provides: ” The duties of the attorney general shall be: *** (5) To consult with, advise, and exercise supervision over the several state’s attorneys of the state in matters pertaining to the duties of their office” .

    The Hyde County State’s Attorney has been tasked by the Governor with deciding whether her boss should be charged with a crime. This is a no-brainer, flat out conflict of interest for the State’s Attorney. Her obvious conflict taints the integrity of the investigation and calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor–one who does not have to answer to the man whom she will decide whether or not to prosecute. This is shady as hell. Especially in view of the facts that have just been released to the public, the Hyde County State’s Attorney should be called on to recuse herself and to ask the circuit court judge to appoint a conflict-free special prosecutor to oversee the investigation and decide whether the Attorney General should or should not become a defendant in a criminal prosecution.

  47. Jenny 2020-11-03 12:56

    Don’t blame the victim, guys. A 10.5 wide shoulder is pretty good for SD, yet Ravnsborg made sure to be as careless and distracted as much as possible to hit Boever.

  48. mike from iowa 2020-11-03 13:00

    Been my experience hitchhikers don’t try to hitch rides in the lane that runs the opposite way they are going.

    Another observation, any well maintained vehicle should track fairly straight up the road while the driver is distracted, unless the front end is out of align or there is a hellacious crosswind blowing the vehicle clear out of its lane.

    I’ve always thought that DFP was a forum
    for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions.

    Unless some of the commenters are from out of state. Right Grudzilla?

  49. bearcreekbat 2020-11-03 13:20

    Edwin, based on your analysis of Ravnsborg’s case and his lack of intent to kill his victim do you think Bill Janklow was wrongfully convicted of manslaughter? Like Ravnsborg, Janklow had no intent to hurt, let alone kill his victim.

    Ravnsborg apparently committed the class 2 misdemeanor of driving unsafely outside his driving lane on to the shoulder due to whatever distracted him. He may also qualify for a reckless driving conviction, a class 1 misdemeanor, according to the definition of that statute, which only requires a jury to find he drove “carelessly and heedlessly in disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Whether Ravnsborg also was guilty of speeding, a class 2 misdemeanor, apparently is an open question awaiting information from whatever “black box” may have been on his vehicle to record the circumstances leading to an accident.

    Like Ravnsborg, Janklow’s killing happened when Janklow only committed the misdemeanors of failing to stop for a stop sign, a class 2 misdemeanor, speeding, a class 2 misdemeanor, and reckless driving, a class 1 misdemeanor, and the killing of his victim was also a “tragic accident,” as Janklow did not intend to hurt anyone.

    How about you happy, do you think was Janklow wrongfully convicted. After all, even though Janklow’s victim had the right of way, just like Ravnsborg’s victim, Janklow’s victim could easily have slowed at the intersection to check for a distracted driver, especially if he had been giving his child a motorcycle ride, right?

    And what about drinking drivers who have no intent to hurt or kill anyone else on the road. The 1st two DUI offenses are only class 1 misdemeanors. Should we have vehicular homicide laws that apply to these unintentional killings?

  50. Edwin Arndt 2020-11-03 13:53

    As I said, Ravnsborg may be guilty of a variety
    of offenses, but not murder.

  51. Debbo 2020-11-03 14:03

    I guess Cory doesn’t mind that his women commenters are stalked and harassed. He likes the stalkers.

    That’s not the free and open exchange of ideas, Edwin, you idiot.

    I will not put up with his behavior. I’m out of here.

  52. Jenny 2020-11-03 14:07

    Edwin, harassment is not free speech. Cory, one of your most valuable intellectuals, Debbo, has a right to openly express herself on here without being harassed. Can you at least talk to Grudz a little bit and tell him to cut it out?

  53. Mike Livingston 2020-11-03 14:37

    Mr. Arndt: You certainly have an defense attorney point of view along with a self promotional motive however misguided, while I concur with your appraisal of the situation however I believe that there is an element of reckless indifference that exceeds the parameters of accidental death. I am not conducting a witch-hunt, far from it, I have no dog in this hunt but it seems to me that the only one willing to pursue justice is Mr. Nemec.

  54. Eve Fisher 2020-11-03 15:39

    (1) Vehicular homicide is not murder.

    (2) I looked it up, and there have been a number of people charged with vehicular homicide in Sioux Falls; most of them were young men, most had been drinking. We may never know if Ravnsborg had been drinking – if you remember, “Ravnsborg says Sheriff Volek, who lives near the accident site, loaned him his personal vehicle to go back to Pierre. Ravnsborg brought the car back in the morning with his chief of staff and spokesman, Tim Bormann, to drive him back.”

    (3) Janklow was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter for failing to stop at an intersection and killing Randy Scott. That’s not murder, either.

    (4) Ravnsborg could be charged with vehicular homicide, 2nd degree manslaughter, reckless endangerment, reckless driving and, at the very minimum, distracted driving. If he’s charged with nothing, but allowed to go his merry way, we’ll know the fix is in.

  55. Richard Schriever 2020-11-03 17:13

    happy camper “isn’t that the argument you are making for wearing masks?’

    NO – the argument being made for wearing masks is the protection of others (keeping your eyes on the road and hands on the wheel; carrying liability insurance) not self-protection (diving in the ditch out of fear).

  56. grudznick 2020-11-03 18:05

    Ms. Jenny, grudznick dropped the very first comment on this blogging about lights and flashlights pointing either east or west. Subsequent comments on this thread involved a variety of name callers of both the in-state and out-of-state variety, who followed me here and also profess not to read my comments. I was discussing, with some sensitivity I feel, the topic at hand. I think others just went off the deep end with all the election stress and bellies full of political polarization. Let us all, both in-and-out-of-state, try and be more sensitive and less name-callingish.

  57. Steve Higgins 2020-11-03 18:09

    “I guess Cory doesn’t mind that his women commenters are stalked and harassed. He likes the stalkers.

    That’s not the free and open exchange of ideas, Edwin, you idiot.

    I will not put up with his behavior. I’m out of here.”

    Sounds like someone’s nothing more than a triggered whiny little girl.

  58. bearcreekbat 2020-11-03 18:34

    Edwin, okay I get it. You weren’t saying Ravnsborg wasn’t guilty of manslaughter, just that he wasn’t guilty of “murder.” Thanks for the clarification. So then do you think a manslaughter charge was appropriate in Janklow’s case and would also be appropriate in Ravnsborg’s based upon the information you have so far, or do you also see a defense to such a charge?

  59. jerry 2020-11-03 18:35

    Are you describing yourself Steve Higgins? You want some cheese with your whine?

  60. Jenny 2020-11-03 18:38

    Steve, FYI Grudz has been harassing Debbo for months. All of the DFP regulars can attest to this. You have seen all the other commenters above that have taken a disliking to grudz and refrain from commenting regularly because of his actions.
    Grudz,trust me, commenters do not follow you. They are here to read what’s happening with the latest SD scandal. If you are serious about being nicer, you would apologize to Debbo. She doesn’t deserve your boorish treatment and has done nothing to deserve it.

  61. grudznick 2020-11-03 18:42

    Mr. bat, I am not as schooled in the laws as is Mr. Arndt, but golly it sure looks like there’s chance for a pretty serious charge out there. I agree Mr. Ravnsborg wasn’t guilty of “murder”, but he’s going to have to be charged with a lot more than texting while driving or careless driving. Once more of the story comes out I bet you he is, as they say, “a piece of toast.”

  62. Edwin Arndt 2020-11-03 19:31

    Jenny, the line between free speech and harassment is quite murky
    and very subjective.

    BCB, I never followed the Janklow case closely. One major
    difference is that Ravnsborg did not go through a stop sign.

  63. leslie 2020-11-03 21:26

    In a diff thread grdz spoke of a commenter’s recent hairstyle indicating he was looking at recent photos (leaving his trail of slime).

  64. grudznick 2020-11-03 23:01

    Which commenter’s hairline was that, Ms. leslie? As a fellow with no hairline save a few stragglers, I admire all those who have one. In fact, there are fewer bloggers than grudznick who appreciate a decent haircut. Do a study on those comments, or focus your attentions on things that matter.

    For instance, my friend Mr. Oakes is losing tonight, and it is only because he has an (L) behind his name. He is far superior to the young lady who seems to be winning in the district numbered 30. A usual travesty, where those insaner than most win more often than not.

    Mr. Oakes, by the way, has swell hair, but that has nothing to do with his ability to be good in the legislatures. So screw your head on straight and stop being superficial about what you perceive is other people being superficial about superficial things.

    In other words, quit whining.

  65. Cody 2020-11-04 02:35

    Happy Camper-“Would you explain to her at night drivers can’t see, they aren’t expecting pedestrians, they might have been drinking or be an inexperienced driver, our flashlight observed at the last moment might startle them so we want to take the safer step of getting well off the highway”

    Sounds to me like they have no business getting behind the wheel of a vehicle.

    Hey Edwin Arndt, who said anything about “murder charges”?

    I’m still waiting for Kurt Evans to jump on and respond to this report. I’d be curious to hear what he has to say.

  66. Jenny 2020-11-04 07:01

    I’m sorry you were ignored growing up Grudz. Please don’t forget your scheduled counseling visits, you really need some help and guidance.

  67. Robert Louis Slamka 2020-11-07 08:01

    Jenny and Jerry,
    Please call Rob Slamka of Madison Wisconsin @(414) 349-9043 VERY IMPORTANT
    Thank you both

  68. John Grosz 2020-12-07 09:46

    Looking at these posts, another month has passed with no “resolve” regarding this matter. AG Ravnsborg is still at his post, and Hyde County Sheriff Mike Volek still has a job.
    So Joe was carrying a light when struck…. yes it was probably a flashlight and after being struck probably flew a distance. But we are to believe later on nobody saw this flashlight in the ditch?
    Time to put some pressure on the State. There has been enough time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.