Sheriff’s Association, Fraternal Order of Police, SD Chiefs of Police advocating that Attorney General should resign

This afternoon, three groups representing the major law enforcement associations added their voices to those advocating that Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg resign from his position as the chief law enforcement officer for the state. From the Argus Leader:

The South Dakota Fraternal Order of Police, the South Dakota Chiefs’ of Police Association and the South Dakota Sheriffs’ Association announced Friday afternoon they are “unified in requesting” that Ravnsborg resign, a call Gov. Kristi Noem made on Tuesday.

“Ravnsborg’s involvement in the death of Joe Boever on September 12th have resulted in a lack of confidence in his ability to effectively carry out his duties as the chief law enforcement officer in South Dakota,” the groups said in the joint announcement.

Read the entire story here.

If you recall at the time of his race, a significant number of the South Dakota Sheriffs were Ravnsborg’s base of support in both his Republican convention race as well as the general election contest – which makes this Friday afternoon announcement surprising.

57 thoughts on “Sheriff’s Association, Fraternal Order of Police, SD Chiefs of Police advocating that Attorney General should resign”

  1. Any cop with more than six months of experience can watch those interviews and know Ravnsborg is lying.

    He has lost all credibility with the law enforcement community and if you don’t think that impacts his ability to do his job, you’re out of touch with reality.

  2. Everyone, the best and the least, deserves their day in court. After their day in court, they can be tried on the court of public opinion.

    1. You’re just being contrarian on this one, Troy. Consider the totality: reading blogs on his phone just moments before impact; hits a man, who is carrying a bright flashlight, well into the shoulder of the road; claims he thought the man was a deer, despite the man’s face hitting the windshield. In light of these undisputed facts, how would you feel if you were the victim’s family?

      He has lost the confidence of the entire law enforcement community. It matters not one bit how the criminal case against him is resolved. He’s unfit to remain in office.

      1. I don’t know what happened out there on the road but if I were the victim’s family I would be wishing I hadn’t thought I was doing him a favor by helping him leave the scene of an accident. I would be very remorseful about letting him avoid spending the night in the county jail. I would be distraught at the thought I had left him home alone after he’d wrecked his truck.
        And depending on the victim’s history, I might even be a bit concerned I could be guilty of misprision of a Felony (class 6)

        That’s how I would feel if I were the victim’s family. Because let’s not forget how this series of unfortunate events started.

          1. no, I am blaming the FAMILY.
            I get it: the cousin thought he was helping him out. He went and picked him up and they left the scene of the accident.
            If he hadn’t gone to get him a cop might have found him first and he might have spent the night in jail.

            Anybody feeling sorry for that cousin needs his head examined..

      2. Law enforcement doesn’t get to decide who’s fit for office. Voters do. Governor’s don’t get to decide who’s fit to for office. Voters do. Only under the very narrow circumstances outlined in the state constitution for impeach are other elected officials empowered to remove someone the voters elected.

        Removal is an extremely high bar (recent stupidity from Pelosi’s House Democrats nothwithstanding) Having read that section of our state constitution a number of times the past few months, it’s clear to me the Legislature learned nothing from Pelosi’s abuses of impeachment power at the Federal level and has jumped the gun with the impeachment articles at the state level.

        Being charged with a crime does not reach the standard. If the AG wants to litigate and appeal the House’s action to the Supreme Court the Court will dismiss the articles as not being a basis for an impeachment trial.

    2. Agreed, where is the due process, where is the innocent until proven guilty??? Ravnsborg is in the military and if I remember correctly, he served in both Irag and Afganistan. He fought for our rights here in the states and we are not willing to give him those same rights, that does not seem right at all.

      1. I believe this is two separate systems, criminal and political. He’ll get his day in court like everyone, however in the political world, the burden, and purpose, are different. He’s ineffective doing his job, so he should be fired.

        1. How is he ineffective?? Everything is running smoothly without any issue from the AG office. So if he is doing his job without issue, then he should be allowed to continue doing his job.

    1. Where is the proof he lied, there is none. A man that is teary eye during an interview does not look like he is lying to me. Nothing shows Ravsnborg lied other than your opinion.

      So again, I say where is the proof he lied???

        1. Again show me the proof, because there is none. No one has any proof of lying. Let’s let the facts come out first before casting the 1st stone.

  3. My comment everyone deserves their court engenders these responses:

    1). I am being a “contrarian.” Nice try with the psychobabble but I think the highest and the lowest deserve a day in court before summarily shot by the mob of public opinion.

    2). “Look at the totality” followed by a list of assertions. We have the courts to discern justice. Not anonymous people. Talk about the height of injustice.

    3). He has lost the support of law enforcement. Well, law enforcement loses confidence in people later determined innocent. The law enforcement getting involved at this stage has significantly diminished their standing in my eyes. Significantly.

    4). This is about his lying. Well, we have a court whose Constitutional duty is to sort through this and not some anonymous blog poster.

    I have no idea if he is guilty of more serious charges, these charges or innocent. I have no idea if he should resign or be impeached but these mob trials in the court of opinion is exactly what I abhorred in the treatment of President Trump or quick judgment and looting/arson protests after George Floyd’s death.

    When the mob picks and chooses who it lynches without due process, we are no longer a nation of laws, a Constitution, and civil rights and someday they will be coming for you.

    1. Well said Troy, everyone should take a pause and wait to see what happens in Court for Ravnsborg. If found guilty then guilty. If found innocent, will everyone apologize for the horrible treatment of Ravnsborg I wonder?

    2. Couldn’t agree more. The videos and evidence should’ve never been made public. The Governor’s stated reason for releasing was because he is the chief law enforcement officer of the state, he is held to a higher standard, and is accountable to the public. Where in the law does it state that high ranking law enforcement officers and/or elected officials have no right to due process? Let the court sort this out, and then the public can have their say. The fact that our elected officials themselves have used this information (that they never should’ve had access to in the first place), and have taken it upon themselves to be the judge and jury, is sickening.

    3. Stop conflating proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction with the requirements for impeachment. I get, given your support of Ravnsborg, that you want to give him as much breathing room as possible, but the burdens of proof are not the same (nor should they be).

      1. What exactly are your “requirements for impeachment” of a Constitutional officer voted on by the people to a four year term?

        Conviction of misdemeanors? Not convicted of misdemeanors?

        1. I can’t tell if you are being serious. Article 16 of the South Dakota Constitution is intentionally silent as to burden of proof and the decision is left up to the senators on whether or not to convict. There is a reason for this: they are acting as both triers of fact and law, a conviction does not lead to imprisonment, there are no rules of evidence, etc. To attempt to try an impeachment proceeding to the outcome of a criminal proceeding leads me to believe that you are either acting in bad faith or just don’t know what you are talking about.

          1. I wonder if I should question if you are acting in bad faith because your statement: “there are no rules of evidence, etc.” is grossly inaccurate and seems to infer the Senate can do anything they want without regard to the law, evidence and doing justice.

            The Constitutions is clear: “When sitting for that purpose the senators shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence..”

            The Constitution says a person is “shall be liable to impeachment for drunkenness, crimes, corrupt conduct, or malfeasance or misdemeanor in office.” The only applicable “charge” is crimes.

            So, I’m asking the questions again:

            Do you think a duly elected Constitutional Officer should be impeached upon conviction of misdemeanors?

            Do you think a duly elected Constitutional Officer should be impeached prior to conviction of misdemeanors?

            Do you think a duly elected Constitutional Officer should be impeached after a court determines him not guilty of misdemeanors?

            Do you think a duly elected Constitutional Officer should be impeached upon suspicion of misdemeanors and never charged?

            BTW, are you the poster who also said he should be impeached because he is “ineffective?

            1. No, I am not. Being “ineffective” is not grounds for impeachment. That’s up to the voters to decide.

              To answer your questions:

              Do you think a duly elected Constitutional Officer should be impeached upon conviction of misdemeanors?

              Should be? Not necessarily. Depends on the misdemeanors. Could be? Yes.

              Do you think a duly elected Constitutional Officer should be impeached prior to conviction of misdemeanors?

              Should be? Not necessarily. Depends on the misdemeanors. Could be? Yes. In cases where they killed someone I am more willing to say yes.

              Do you think a duly elected Constitutional Officer should be impeached after a court determines him not guilty of misdemeanors?

              Again, maybe. The burden for a criminal conviction is not the same as impeachment, and if the required number of senators believe the AG killed someone and then lied about the circumstances the lead to the death, I believe the facts could still support the impeachment.

              Do you think a duly elected Constitutional Officer should be impeached upon suspicion of misdemeanors and never charged?

              Again, this is facts dependent. One might argue that “corrupt conduct” may not rise to the level of criminal conduct, but I am struggling to think of such an example. So I lean no here.

              Btw: you misread the meaning of “evidence” as applied above. That means they must rule on the evidence provided, not that the rules of evidence (hearsay, improper character evidence) apply in an impeachment the same way they do in criminal proceedings. Again, you are wrong.

              1. How do you know the rules of evidence in an impeachment trial do not apply in “the same way they do in criminal proceedings?” Are you a member of the Supreme Court? Otherwise, since you an just an anonymous blog poster with no credibility, I’ll not accept “I am wrong.”

                Further, the Constitution says this is a trial. The Senators are swear to do JUSTICE according to the LAW and EVIDENCE which makes it clear they are not to conduct a Kangaroo Court and the accused deserves due process.

                Finally, regarding your answer to your questions above, it is clear you think impeachment is a 100% discretionary endeavor without regard to justice conducted in a trial with normal and customary protections by law and evidence. Sufficient Senators just have to believe someone did something bad and/or lied about it to remove a duly elected Constitutional Officer. Scary. Scary.

                1. Again, law and evidence refers to the established constitutional methods of impeachment and analysis of evidence. Perhaps this is why, as late as 2019 at the Federal level, GOP reps penned a letter to John Roberts requesting application of the FRE for an impeachment. But cool, Troy. Just stick your fingers in your ears and say “Nu-uh” in place of an argument.

    1. Yes, he will have his day in court…for 3 misdemeanors that he is obviously guilty of if you’ve listened to all the evidence. So I don’t need to wait for a verdict to know that his carelessness took a life. Beyond that, his lack of awareness makes me question his competence in investigation.

      In regard to lying about knowing it was a person…that is unclear. Maybe he really is that oblivious. Regarding his cell usage…that seems a little dishonest. But he agreed to a poly so maybe we will see.

      The voters don’t REALLY decide our AG, it’s the delegates. And now the base of his support, law enforcement, that Ravnsborg bragged about so much, is asking him to step down in this very article we are all commenting on. I liked Jason personally, but if he can’t see the writing on the wall, it’s my opinion, the legislature should take action.

  4. It feels like the governor is out to get Ravnsborg. Why is she so bent on getting rid of Ravnsborg. It makes you wonder if she is trying to cover something up or worries something might come out bad about her.

    1. She might be doing it because it’s the right thing to do. She might be doing it so she can appoint before Marty formally announces a return run to the AG spot. I hope it’s because she feels it’s the right thing to do.

      Side question for the lawyers reading this… Does releasing the tapes hurt Jason’s ability to have a fair trial?

          1. Or is it the truth, she has not released any info on how her security or transportation for all her campaigning nationally was paid for. I thought she was full transparancy?

  5. Whether Ravnsborg resigns is up to him. I am beginning to believe he is going to have a difficult time enforcing the laws with this hanging over him. The biggest problem with all of the people who are jumping all over him are probably most of them are in the but for the grace of God there go I situation. I know of very few people who have never looked at a phone while driving or driven across a line or been careless in driving at any time.

    1. Can any of the AG’s defenders please explain how it was okay for him to initially lie about his phone usage until it was proven he was on his phone? I would love to hear how that can be seen as okay. All I see is people trying to act like it didn’t happen and focus on other aspects of the case, such as “but he’s a good guy.” Looking forward to any response.

      1. He never lied about his phone usage, he stated he did not use his phone at the time of the accident. The evidence shows that he did not have his phone on during the time of the accident. So again, where is the lie????

  6. First, I won’t say I think the AG should resign. But, I would if I were him.

    Second… Stop acting as though the things said in those interviews by the investigators are facts of the case. Interrogators are allowed to lie during those interviews in pursuit of a confession. They can and will lie about evidence, it’s a common, and acceptable practice. The judge surely ordered their removal from the DPS site for that reason.

  7. Anom says above: “He’s ineffective doing his job, so he should be fired.”

    OMG, in other words if you thought he was doing a good job, you wouldn’t be using this opportunity to get rid of him.

    Show me in the Constitution where is says “ineffective” is grounds for impeachment.

    More importantly, every elected official can be evaluated by someone other than the voters at the end of the term and they can be removed early?

    Tell me again how this differs from the first Trump impeachment?

  8. Anonymous on March 1 @11:37 makes this bold statement about to what what our Constitution written 130 years ago refers: “Again, law and evidence refers to the established constitutional methods of impeachment and analysis of evidence.”

    Well, since you don’t sign your name or give any reason for me to think you aren’t more than wannabe lawyer, I won’t give your statement “But cool, Troy. Just stick your fingers in your ears and say “Nu-uh” in place of an argument.” the credence it deserves: None.

    More importantly, these Senators swear an oath to do JUSTICE based on the LAW and EVIDENCE. And, removing a duly elected Constitutional Officer upon the accusation (yet to be proven) of misdemeanor crimes on Senator’s whims does not strike me as just.

    Most importantly, removal of a duly elected Constitutional Officer for the commission of misdemeanors is not a precedent I want set. We have elections for the citizens to determine who we want in office.

    To be clear, I don’t know if the AG is guilty of more serious offenses, these offenses, or is innocent of all charges. But, there is no justice in he being tried in the court of public opinion before he gets a chance to defend himself.

    1. You could just write: “I am losing this argument so will change the topic to your anonymity so I don’t feel so bad.” This is a tired tactic, Troy. Just admit you spoke hastily and move on.

      1. OK. You are full of crap. You say stuff with no backup and think that is winning an argument. Cowards are especially big talkers promoting their agenda under the guise of big words behind an anonymous computer screen.

        South Dakota Senators aren’t Nancy Pelosi sycophants and will not run roughshod over due process and go to the lowest common demominator of actions and rules just to accomplish a goal.

        1. You never provided a single shred of evidence that the rules of evidence apply at impeachment. When called out on it, you threw a tantrum and demanded a person dox themselves in an attempt to protect your ego. And not once, in all your hedging in this thread, have you acknowledged that South Dakota’s AG killed a man. You further descend into name calling because you are upset. Grow up. Your pride isnt this important.

          1. It was an accident, and unfortunately sometimes accidents happen. Why can’t you get over that?? It was not on purpose.

            1. I never asserted it was intentional, and I have no idea where you got the idea that I did. I AM asserting that he was negligent, and that negligence cost a man his life.

          2. And since you are so incensed about sources for whether or not the rules of evidence apply in impeachment proceedings:


            Take caution: these people disagree with you, and thus you need to be prepared to attack them personally.

          3. Now I know you are full of crap. You can’t even apprehend the written word.

            My point is the same: The Senate has to follow the Constitution. The only applicable cause for impeachment is the officer has committed a crime. They take an oath to “do justice according to law and evidence.” They can’t be arbitrary with regard to the law or evidence and still do justice. And, if all they can prove is a minor misdemeanor, I do not think it a sufficient bar for the removal of a duly elected Constitutional Officer. And, finally, people who think impeachment is the new weapon of whim, political agenda, and denigration of the citizen’s right to select their leaders are people are on par with the morals of Nancy Pelosi.

            Regarding the death of Mr. Boever, he deserves justice too which the purview of our court system. So far, the State’s Attorney has filed charges and I look forward to that process going forward and will trust and respect the determination of a trial of Mr. Ravnsborg’s and Mr. Boever’s peers.

            Finally, regarding your unwillingness to put your name behind your words. I am accepting of people desiring to advocate political positions anonymously as one can take the argument at face value and argue the points. You however:

            1) claim some type of “authority” but back it up with nothing to give credence to your authority.

            2) Advocate the destruction of a person’s reputation and livelihood without it being done with justice under the law and according a fair presentation and consideration of the evidence. Even the federal rules aren’t specifically required because you say so, it is unjust and thus contrary to the oath the Senator’s take. Not being required does not mean it is licit, moral or just to not accede to them.

            1. You’re right. The Senate does have to follow the Constitution, which specifically lays out the requirements for impeachment proceedings in Article 16. You can keep talking yourself into knots, but your pretzel logic doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong. Put down the shovel, Troy.

              I also posted some links so you could do some reading, but I think this site has an auto-mod regarding posts that exceed a certain number of links. Feel free to educate yourself.

              Finally, you keep saying I want Ravnsborg tried “without justice” or whatever other grandiose phrasing you can come up with to cover for a complete lack of legal basis for your claims. Again: I am asking that Ravnsborg be tried according to article 16. YOU are the one trying to add a bunch of non-existent requirements because you think you know better than everyone else.

              You’re wrong. But keep going. I am sure that, at some point, you will get the argumentative killshot you’ve been unable to nab so far.

              1. People who talk like you have a base morality if it isn’t spelled out, it is allowed. I have a different expectation of people to respond to a higher standard of doing always what is moral and just. I hope all the Senators will pursue “the more” when they take their oath “do justice according to law and evidence.”

                We saw what happens with the Trump impeachment when politicians think it not prohibited so it is licit.

                1. And people like you resort to any number of logical fallacies and personal attacks to protect their unearned sense of intellectual and moral superiority. You were wrong, and we both know it. Take care of yourself, Troy.

  9. Anonymous, I’d love a meaningful correction. Please name in particular which logical fallacy I espoused. Thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.