DPS Provides Ravnsborg Investigation File to Speaker Gosch

43 thoughts on “DPS Provides Ravnsborg Investigation File to Speaker Gosch”

1. Oh good grief. So many better things to be focused on right now than ousting an AG who is willing to investigate issues that the Governor disapproves of. The last thing the state needs is an AG appointed by Noem who feels obligated to take orders from her.

   1. “ an AG who is willing to investigate issues that the Governor disapproves of.”

      I can’t think of one example of this. If anything, Ravnsborg seems like he’d be a pretty cooperative ally to Noem (before all this obviously).

      Could it be she actually just thinks he needs to go?

      1. More like Noem wants someone in place that answers to her because she has something to hide. I wonder what Noem is hiding??

         1. Because it can’t be that her motives are pure, ever, in any context, right? 🙂

            1. Nope, Nemo has been too interested in campaigning around the country than to be govner.

               Ask yourself this, why would a Republican attack a fellow Republican when all the facts were not known? Why would she illegally release one-sided information and videos to try and hurt a fellow Republican?

2. This is a press release from the Governor’s office. With the sheriffs and police weighing in, I think some reliable forecasts can be made about the future shape of things.

3. Impeachment is just not warranted here.

   It sets a horrible precedent.

   He was charged with 3 misdemeanors, 1 of which is unrelated to the accident and 1 of which was dismissed….so lane driving remains with a no contest or no factual findings.

   Not what some wanted him charged with, but what he was charged with.

   1. I don’t think anyone argues the two misdemeanors justify impeachment.

      It’s really more about his behavior in response to the matter. Secretary Price’s letter and the various statements by the law enforcement groups all refer to that.

      1. Does Price really believe that the prosecutors could have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the attorney general “consciously” disregarded the risk of killing a pedestrian? Because to me that sounds insane.

         I hope “24-year law enforcement officer” Craig Price isn’t as egomaniacal as he sounds in his letter.

      2. Seriously, now we are impeaching someone on behavior. Sorry but Noem is sounding more and more like a democrat, just like the Democrats were against Trump with impeachment.

         1. agreed

4. The biggest laugh is Craig Price saying this s not political…its been political since day one and the governor put herself front and center in it.

   1. Craig Price is career law enforcement and is not political. He has an excellent reputation. He wouldn’t sign his name to this if he didn’t mean it.

      1. I’m not afraid Price doesn’t believe what he says in his letter, which can be roughly paraphrased, “The law enforcement professionals involved in this investigation did not make any mistakes.”

         I’m afraid he does believe it.

      2. I would like to see all the traffic violations and whatever else released for Nemo and her team. I wonder how many of them should be throwing stones in their glass house?

5. More bashing of the prosecutors… and he is a career law enforcement man?

   First the Governor now Price…..how about they had a hard job looked at all the evidence and charged as they thought was appropriate.

6. Cops always want more charges but the legal minds routinely say you don’t have enough evidence and charge what is appropriate.

   He was not drinking, he was not on his phone at the time of the incident he was not recklessly speeding … the law is crystal clear that this is not a manslaughter case.

   1. He was distracted and left the driving lane and killed a man. The only reason he wasn’t charged is because we don’t have a general distracted while driving law and we only lay it out for specific activities which doesn’t make any sense. How is being distracted in a different manner any less of crime than being distracted by a phone?

      1. The evidence on leaving his lane is shaky at best.

         1. Huh? When joe was struck and he applied the brakes, he was 2-3ft outside the lane. This isn’t even debatable at this point.

            1. It was never proven that he was 2-3ft outside of the lane. What seems more plausible from the evidence is Joe was stumbling half in the road half off. Multiple witnesses stated he was stumbling, he was way over-medicated, debris from the car was found in the middle of the road.

               1. Jason’s vehicle was 2-3 ft outside the lane when Joe was struck. They know the exact point of impact and when braking started. Jason was clearly off the road. Of course debris is going to be found in the middle of the road. I bet you could find something in the far ditch as well. That has very little to do with where the vehicle is specifically on the road. He hit joe and slammed on the brakes and Jason was clearly driving outside his lane when that happened.

                  1. That’s just not provable
                     The evidence was inconclusive

                     1. It was provable which is why he was charged with not staying in his lane.

                        1. plead no contest

                           1. Are you his mom? I’m seriously asking. Your point is indefensible and uninformed.

                  2. Seriously, this was never proven. Show the evidence, O wait you have none again.

      2. So if Joe reached for his tobacco as the family claims and hit someone under your definition he to should have been charged with manslaughter?

         1. Yes?

         2. Yes. Remember when they were considering a cell phone law and all the anti’s were claiming we already had a law that covered distracted driving and they just need to enforce it? Where are those people now? It’s clear we don’t because a distracted person just got away with killing a man.

            1. Stop changing the goal post here – DISTRACTIONS occur frequently while driving a motor vehicle. SO many things can cause a distraction. When Jason called 9-1-1 told them he did NOT know what he hit, he did not see what he hit, also note, the STATE also questioned the fact they DID NOT know what caused the distraction cause actual evidence showed the “Phone” had been locked prior to impact. They had no clue, nor proof what led to the “Distraction”. Could have been a low flying plane flying in the area that led to him taking his eyes off the road. Could have been Jason reaching over to plug his phone into the cigerate lighter, or thumbing thru radio stations, could have been a passing car flying by at 70 mph, shining bright lights at him. The distraction could have been anything. Anyone knows who has driven at night between 10 PM and 3 AM in the pitch black of night, your eyes do often times play tricks on you, you see things that are not there, you browse the stars and the moon in the sky, your mind tends to wander and you think of things you want to do when you get home, work tomorrow, you think of memories of yesteryears. Anything can cause a distraction.

               Take your eyes off the road for 2-3 seconds and that car can easily veer to the left or right without notice. This is why Distracted Driving is considered a Class 2 Misdemeanor in this state, cause it happens unbeknownst to you knowing it, and its NOT done within intent.

               Being involved in “racing” my entire life, I know how automobiles react in certain situations – your driving down the track, you hit a bump that forces the car to veer to the left or right, into another car/object, sometimes at great force you collide, which upon applying the brakes at great force, and in conjunction with the impact, can actually push the car into the direction of the ‘impact’, in Jasons case – the impact and braking force turned the car further to the ‘right’.

               Yes, its quite possible Jason told the truth, that he was in the driving lane at the time of the incident, the distraction caused the car to slightly steer the right hand wheels across the white line, and based on facts, the pedestrian was most likely much closer to the white line than the family claims (remember their claim is an assumption), and when you notice the damage to Jason’s vehicle, its all on the right front corner, right side of hood, and windshield.

               IF, if Jason was 2-4 feet off the driving lane, this places the pedestrian in the ditch, meaning the right side tires had to be in the dtich or close to it, which I highly doubt.

               No – I believe the impact happened slightly across the white line, the impact in conjunction with the braking power fast moves the car further off and into the shoulder, in a matter of seconds the pedestrian up and over and into the Ditch, much lower than the investigators claim.

               If all this happens in a matter of 1-6 seconds, Jason is telling the truth, he never saw nothing, especially if he got distracted by something, object or whatever.

               No one ever talks about the prior ‘incident’ that Mr Boever had 2-3 hours earlier where he became distracted while driving his truck in the same area, that distraction caused him to cross over the white line, and drive into the ditch, hitting a hay barrel. Causing enough damage that he could not drive home, he had to get a family member to give him a ride, telling him to stay put until the next morning. Was he drunk, distracted, on medication, depressed, who knows…but we do know, Mr Boever NEVER called 9-1-1 or local authorities to report the incident, which says a lot, cause he for some odd reason decides to step off his front porch to walk out onto a dark highway knowing that vehicles can swerve to the right and left cause of tired drivers. He placed himself in that position.

               Does this not mean, the two ‘incidents’ now become ONE COMMON ACCIDENT, and if so, does this not allow thru discovery of facts to retrace Mr Boever’s footsteps 24 hours earlier?

               Everyone says Mr Boever had a right to be walking down a highway at 10 PM, well, Jason had a right to be driving down that same highway also. God placed them both on that collision course, manifest destiny for whatever reason, we may never know.

               Facts are, you cant prove Jason was drinking alcohol, you cant prove he was recklessly driving, those things have to be actually witnessed by a traffic cop or a bystander. You got none of that here.

               Point Blank- Distractions are common, anything can cause them, DO YOU really want Legislators to change the law that would allow the STATE to find someone of murder all cause a driver got distracted? NO.

               It is not illegal to talk on your phone while driving, it is not illegal to drive on the road distracted, its simply an action that may or may not lead to an incident upon our public roads. I would NOT want the State to have that much power. No way in hell.

               Being involved in automobile racing my entire life, has taught me, anything that happens on a “public road’ is not intentional, and is definately not murder in the same way it may be in other instances.

               Look at TONY STEWARD – he gets involved in an on track incident where two sprint cars collide going for the same spot in turn 3. The driver of the one car gets out of his car on a dark racetrack, walks down into the driving lane of oncoming traffic, of which Tony Stewart is now behind another car, coming up on the now pedestrian ex-driver, they collide and the impact kills the driver. Is Tony Steward guilty of homicide or manslaughter? No.

               Tony Stewart was a victim of circumstances of a little punk getting out of his car, and standing in a position that placed him in harms way. The pedestrian in that case was found to have been heavily effected by Marijuana…

               So that brings us back to Jason vs Mr Boever – what led to Mr Boever placing himself in harms way, late at night, on a dark U.S Highway 14 knowing that drivers have a reputation of being tired, sleepy, distracted, while driving back from late night gatherings, where they may or may not lose control of their car, let alone allow the car to steer across the white line?

               Do you really believe Jason Ravsnborg really intended to drive onto the shoulder knowingly kill a pedestrian? I think not.

               Come on people use common sense.

               Thank You,
               Mike Zitterich
               [email protected]

               1. I’d point out everything wrong with this post, but I don’t debate misogynistic bigots who hate jews. You should be ashamed of yourself, Mike.

                  1. You should be ashamed of what your wrote. Maybe go to church Sunday? It may help

                  2. I never knew I hate Jews. that was a total Slanderish Comment. I wrote a very respectful, professional response, and I guess that is the thanks I get. YOU use a “FAKE NAME” and hide your identity cause you most likely have something to hide. Grow Up.

               2. Very well written and shows clearly that an unfortunate accident has been politically blown out of proportion. If this had not been the AG, I bet no charges would have been filed and we would have heard nothing about this accident.

7. I think the governor needs to realize that she has her own issues with her driving, speeding tickets, running of stop signs, failures to appear, etc.. Yes, I know that she was not involved in a fatal accident, but that was not due to her cautious driving.

   I don’t think she handled this ethically by her release of information contrary to the prosecution’s direction. She should have let them simply do their job instead of making it a vendetta against Ravnsborg.

8. The AG has lost the confidence of those he is leading. Step down. By the amount of support he is getting on this website, he should have no issue hanging a shingle and opening a private practice.

   1. Who says he lost the confidence of those he is leading, show me? Have you asked everyone in the AG’s office? You haven’t, so don’t post these uneducated and nonfactual opinions.

      1. A letter from just about every sheriff in the state saying exactly that. The AG’s office isn’t even 1% of those who he is in charge of leading and supporting.

   2. He hasn’t lost confidence in the public. Let voters decide if misdemeanors are enough to remove from office.

      1. Want to put money on that? He will never be elected again to public office. Whether he committed a crime or not, that is a public service career ender. There is no coming back from that, especially with how he acted following the accident.

         1. Like I said, let the party and voters decide.

9. I see Mike Moore is out defending the decision of the prosecutors. Even he is saying this is political.

Comments are closed.