State House member whose husband ran for AG vowing to remove Ravnsborg from office in social media

@SoDakCampaigns

 

This afternoon on the Rapid City Journal’s facebook page, a reader was calling on the State Representatives for Lawrence County to remove Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg from office as a consequence of traffic violations, including a speeding ticket he received in Pierre earlier this week.  One of the violations, failure to maintain in his lane, is considered to be a factor in the death of Joe Boever last fall.

In response, it appeared that State Representative Mary Fitzgerald responded that she was “on it.”

This is interesting because of a couple of reasons.

First, Fitzgerald is a member of the State House of Representatives, the body which has the sole power of impeachment and would be bringing a measure to send the matter to the State Senate for trial.

Secondly, Fitzgerald’s husband, John Fitzgerald, ran against Ravnsborg for Attorney General at the 2018 State Republican Convention.  And, it is possible that he may be up for consideration for appointment should Ravnsborg be removed from office.

There’s a lot in that statement which is a cannon being loaded for bear in the months ahead.

The office of Attorney General is up for election in 2022, and currently, the only announced candidate is former Attorney General Marty Jackley, who ran unsuccessfully for Governor in 2018. Ravnsborg could run for the office, or if the office is vacated, an appointee of the Governor’s may seek to run.  However, Jackley is widely anticipated as being formidable in the 2022 AG race regardless of who the opponent may be.

Stay tuned.

110 thoughts on “State House member whose husband ran for AG vowing to remove Ravnsborg from office in social media”

  1. Get it done. Jason doesn’t belong in that position. If you can’t even responsibly drive your vehicle, you shouldn’t be in the highest law enforcement position in the state.

      1. Well the strongest evidence is that he killed another human being. If you need more, his admission of browsing this blog while driving is another. Also, speeding to “take his recycling out” by over 20mph over the speed limit also is irresponsible. What would it take for you to say someone isn’t a responsible driver?

        1. I’m not sure whether I’d ever say someone isn’t a responsible driver.

          If Joe Boever committed suicide by running into the driving lane, would you argue it’s evidence that Ravnsborg can’t responsibly drive a vehicle?

      1. You mean the investigators were lying to him….

        They pounded on him insisting he was on his phone at the the of the accident but then when the evidence came out it proved witjout any doubt that he was not on his phone at the time of the crash…

        I can see why people falsely confess after that…but yet he stood strong and was later proven to be telling the truth

              1. Know? I can’t. Common sense indicates a lifelong South Dakotan would know the difference between an upright human and a deer if they were paying attention.

                1. Exactly. I’ve met pedestrians on dark highways at highway speeds. You may only see them for an instant and it makes your heart drop because you were surprised and afraid you might/could hit them, but I have never confused that with a deer. He either knew what he hit and was lying about what he saw, or he didn’t know what he hit and he was lying about being distracted. His behavior is not acceptable for the position he holds.

                  1. Have you ever had a pedestrian commit suicide by running into the path of your car from the extreme periphery of your headlight beam on a dark, cloudy night?

          2. He said he hit something in the “middle” of the road. What do you think his biggest lie is?
            A commissioned officer in the US Army Reserve and the states top cop should be able to act like a man.

            1. I don’t know what his biggest lie is, and I don’t believe I’ve accused him of any lies.

              If Ravnsborg’s car was near the middle of his driving lane when it hit something, would you argue it’s an “obvious lie” to say that what he hit was in the middle of the road?

  3. I am the one who asked my elected officials to push for impeachment. Even if it was an accident, the sitting Attorney General still killed a person. Because of that matter alone, he shouldn’t be the highest authority in our justice system.

    Certainly Representative Fitzgerald’s husband ran against Ravnsborg and I personally wish he would have won. Regardless of that fact, she has a duty to uphold the wishes of her constituents. The fact that her husband may be considered to be a replacement shouldn’t AT ALL keep her from asking for justice.

    Clearly the sitting AG doesn’t have a respect for at least our traffic laws. He needs to be removed.

    1. Hopefully none of the elected officials in the state are ever pulled over for having a bad taillight on a boat trailer. That might be a hanging offense.

        1. And we keep forgetting that the guy was stumbling in the road and was way over his medication level. He bears fault as well.

          1. A couple points.

            1) “Stumbling in the road” is not consistent with the accident reconstruction team’s report. You know, the people who (a) were actually at the scene; & (b) do this for a living. But let’s assume you are 100% correct that Mr. Boever was negligent in a manner that led to his death.
            2) Even if he did contribute, as you noted, BOTH bear responsibility. One of the men is dead, and the other is the chief law enforcement officer of the state.
            3) His actions after the fact have consistently shown a lack of remorse for his actions.

            a) No showing sentencing to face the family.
            b) Arrested DAYS before his sentencing for traveling 57 mph in a 35mph zone. In a government vehicle.

            He needs to go. Yesterday.

            1. I apologize, NOT ARRESTED. A citation was issued for driving 57 in a 35. I misspoke and wish I could edit that point.

              1. “Stumbling in the road” is also inconsistent with Ravnsborg not seeing him. It seems obvious to me that Boever committed suicide by running into the path of the car.

                What evidence did the reconstruction team cite to support the claim that the collision happened on the shoulder?

                  1. I’d already read that report, but I couldn’t find any evidence to support the claim that the collision happened on the shoulder. What evidence did the reconstruction team cite?

                    1. Skid marks. Debris. Side of impact on the car (the car was struck on the front right side, indicating that Boever did not “run into the driving lane to kill himself” like some people are pulling out of their behinds. Ravnsborg claiming he thought it was a deer, with later evidence showing Boever’s head came through the windshield, indicating that he was either a) distracted or b) dumber than a bag of hammers.

              2. (Responding to Anonymous at 12:42.)

                The front of the right side of the car is exactly where I expected the initial impact to have been if Boever ran into the driving lane, and that impact would have turned the car toward the shoulder. How could skid marks and loose debris show where the initial collision had been?

                And what evidence showed that Boever’s head came through the windshield?

                  1. Government investigators routinely lie during interviews. Their claim that Boever’s glasses were found in the car is no more credible than their claim that his flashlight was still on “like a beacon” and easily visible from either side of the road after the crash. How did the sheriff supposedly miss it? And the tow truck driver? And everyone else who drove past it that night?

            2. And the prosecution found he did no wrong or they would have charged him. Hence, it is an accident. Why can’t you get that through your head, an Accident.

              1. It’s not the accident that disturbs me, it’s his obvious lying about the events leading up to it and his attempts to obfuscate the truth. He was distracted and killed a man who was on the shoulder of the road. Just because his specific reason for being distracted is not laid out in our laws doesn’t mean he is not being negligible. On your phone, crime. Eating a burger and reaching for a napkin, legal. Remember when all those who claimed we didn’t need a cell phone law because they just needed to enforce what was already on the books? Well, I think they need to put in a distracted driving law that encompasses any activity that doesn’t allow you to exercise the care required to operate a motor vehicle in a safe manner. The fact remains, had Jason been paying attention, he probably wouldn’t have hit Joe and when he did, he would have known it was a person.

                1. Like reaching for tobacco? That was the excuse that was given for Joe for hitting a hay bale, nothing about his high medication levels, but god forbid we talk about the victim’s actions.

                  That is why civil cases compare if there was negligence and how much both each party.

                  If this wasn’t the AG….the tune would be different….anyone remember the lady in Rapid a few months back that was stumbling drunk in town and the entire reaction was it was her fault for putting herself there in that condition, but not in this case which even the prosecutor said was highly politicized.

                  1. Exactly like reaching for tobacco. Those actions of Joe are irrelevant to the later accident other than to give reason to why he was on the shoulder of the road. Joe’s wife will win the civil case, no questions asked. If that drunk lady was stumbling down the sidewalk and someone jumped the curb and killed her, I’d still say the driver needs to be in jail. Those actions are not contributing factors to the driver’s negligence. The fact remains, if the AG was paying attention and stayed in the driving lane, Joe would be alive today.

                    1. What would you say is the most obvious lie Ravnsborg told about “the events leading up to” the crash? How do you claim to know he wasn’t paying attention? How do you claim to know Boever didn’t commit suicide by running into the drving lane?

                  1. People continuously say that Ravnsborg did no wrong because he wasn’t charged with vehicular homicide and that just isn’t true. It has been explained why several times but people keep believing what they want anyways. It’s like this entire site is infected with John Dale type thinking and it is becoming increasingly difficult to overcome. This isn’t trolling, it’s asking people to take responsibility for some basic research into the applicable law and then stop lying. That help?

                    1. Yes it does. Thanks for clarifying, and I agree. People who act like they’re supporting Ravnsborg but say things that aren’t true are actually harming him.

    2. I also talked to my legislator via phone call.
      His reply
      Rep Dennert said to me:

      “Legally I’m not sure how much I can or should comment but the next few weeks have the potential to be pretty interesting”

      Whether he is right or wrong, I like that he took this approach not go to Facebook like Rep Fitzgerald did. Yes, she has to uphold her duties but with her husbands history with him, she looks like she has an axe to grind

  4. He “felt terrible” for killing a man. To show us how badly he feels, he drives more than twenty mph over the limit. I’m waiting for the newest line of excuses about “could happen to anyone” and “nobody’s fault.”

    1. I’ve driven twenty miles per hour over the speed limit more than once. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t feel terrible if a man committed suicide by running into the path of my car.

      1. Agreed, so everyone around the world drive whatever speed limit is posted on the road? It’s just an unfortunate timing for a speeding ticket. Everyone is acting like no one speeds.

        1. That’s not what everyone is saying, so stop being disingenuous. What we are saying is “Hey, if you committed traffic offenses that led to a man’s death, maybe don’t do them at least for a couple years.” But no, let’s go with your completely bs framing of the issue.

  5. It’s not that he was involved in an accident or that he got a speeding ticket. It’s his conduct in response. That’s why all the law enforcement groups want him gone.

        1. The biggest one has to be him getting a damn speeding ticket for 57 in a 35 mere days before his sentencing. In a government vehicle. This is not the behavior of a person who has remorse for what happened.

          1. Assuming that Ravnsborg had actually entered the 35-MPH zone when he was clocked, why would you say he should have “remorse”?

            And the original comment says it’s not that Ravnsborg got a speeding ticket: “It’s his conduct in response.” What’s the “conduct in response”?

            1. Probably the fact that he is breaking another law while driving and not just by a little bit. It’s a pattern of behavior that could potentially be used against him to prove he is a habitual offender which makes him a greater risk to anyone on the road, in a vehicle or as a pedestrian. You would think someone who just killed a person for driving like an idiot would work extra hard to behave and follow the driving laws, but it appears Jason didn’t learn a thing because he feels he was a victim.

            2. You missed the point. My point is: if Ravnsborg truly was terribly impacted by Mr. Boever’s death, ya’d think he might try to obey traffic laws and not speed at ridiculous rates. But nice to see some of you are gearing up to blame the police for the most recent stop. Stay classy, DWC. God is on your side.

              1. Police officers are prone to corruption and honest mistakes just like the rest of us. May God reveal the truth.

                1. So come out and say it: do you think Ravnsborg was cited for going 22mph over the limit because of

                  A) Police corruption; or
                  B) mistake?

                  If a, you have ZERO evidence to support such a conclusion and it’s a crazy argument to make. If b, law enforcement officers in the state of South Dakota are trained at standards to test the accuracy of radar using tuning forks at the beginning of every shift. So, which is it?

    2. The same groups that Noem petitioned to put pressure on Ravnsborg to resign? The same governor that wants “her” person in as AG.

    3. YES. He needs to stand up and be an adult. Take some responsibility for your actions. That’s the Republican way. No, actually, it’s the normal, adult way of doing things. Same thing I try to teach my kids. Take responsibility for your own actions. Show up to court. Apologize directly. May have been an ‘accident’, but you were the driver and should own your actions. The trouble with the most recent ticket, isn’t so much that he was speeding and got caught, but it casts doubt on his previous claims. I know the road he was speeding on — very easy to go fast — but NOT 22 MPH OVER THE LIMIT!

  6. Fitzgerald has always hated Ravnsborg…. Nothing newsworthy here… further push by Gov to get her hands On the appointment

    1. Did the governor also make the AG travel 57 in a 35 mere days before his sentencing for traffic violations that contributed to a man’s death?

  8. How is this not a conflict of interest?? So Mary is still upset that her husband came in last place in the AG convention run and now is trying to get payback? This looks very bad for Mary. Especially, because Ranvansborg was proven by law not to be at fault. It was an unfortunate accident, nothing more.

    1. How in god’s name did you reach the conclusion that “Ranvansborg was proven by law not to be at fault?” He wasn’t charged with vehicular homicide because state statute requires either:

      a) Intoxication; or
      b) Recklessness.

      That doesn’t mean he wasn’t at fault.

      2. Had he been at fault, he would have been charged. So no one is allowed to ever have an accident. I tripped on the sidewalk, I am now blaming the city because they put the sidewalk in.

        1. OMG, I am starting to wonder whether people are acting in bad faith with posts like these or are just dumb. Ok, for the UMPTEENTH TIME:

          Criminal laws typically out on two fronts:

          1) Actus reus – the actual criminal act
          2) Mens rea – the intent

          Mens rea has several levels:

          1) Intentional, meaning they meant to do what they did.
          2) The person knew their act would likely lead to a certain result
          3) Reckless – commits an act knowing there is a substantial risk a certain result will occur
          4) Negligent- commits an act they should have known created an unjustifiable risk a certain result could occur.

          SDCL for vehicular homicide provides for mens rea:

          1) Any person who, while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or substances in a manner and to a degree prohibited by § 32-23-1, without design to effect death, operates or drives a vehicle of any kind in a negligent manner.

          It’s not enough to drive negligently if the person isn’t intoxicated. Nobody has said Ravnsborg was under the influence, so he didn’t meet the actus reus required by law, and pure negligence isn’t covered by law.

          Notice THIS DOESN’T MEAN HE WASN’T AT FAULT. Stop lying. It’s just constant on this website at this point.

          1. So you are saying it yourself, Ravnsborg doesn’t meet the actus reus of the law. So he is not at fault, thank you for proving that this was a horrible accident.

              1. How can a person quote law saying Ravnsborg doesn’t meet negligence under the law and then call him negligence. If he was negligent then the law would apply.

                How dense are you???

  9. These are not impeachable offenses…..totally a power play

    Mary attacking Jason may actually help him as we all know how nasty she was in 2018.

  10. If they try to impeach over traffic violations, I’d start to pull the driving records of all the legislators. Because they should be the next to go.

      2. Ravnsborg didn’t kill anyone, it was an accident. Why was the guy on the road, over-medicated, at night, in the dark, on a Saturday night? Oh wait, he crashed his truck earlier that day.

  11. Moments in history give people the opportunity to become bigger than life and smaller than a mouse.

    1. Here is the gist.

      If Ravnsborg is impeached it will be because the entire thing became a political hot potato. He did kill someone with his car. Maybe the honorable thing to do is to resign. But on the other hand the prosecutors and the judge gave him barely a slap on the wrist because they view the case through the lens of the law.

      As should the legislature and governor.

      The governor has decided to view this through the lens of a mob and politics.

      Craig Price should resign for releasing those interviews.

      The governor has abused her authority over politics.

      Ravnsborg really screwed up not having someone driving with him, not having an attorney in his interview, and the fact that he still is driving himself at this stage of his AG tenure is beyond a boner move. Absolutely STUPID.

      The only thing I am curious of is if the impeachment becomes just about political optics and doing the governors bidding or if it is rejected in favor of cooler heads.

      Ravnsborg is unelectable. Sad end to his political resume but it should not end in impeachment.

      Not unless mobs start dictating who is fit to serve.

      1. When people vote for him- GOOD! DEMOCRACY!
        When people express their anger at what has happened and demand accountability- MOB! BAD!

        Cool story.

  13. Clearly not impeachable

    Couple freshman legislators with agendas is all this is pushed by the Governor

    I predict more interference by Noem, she is on a roll constantly attacking conservatives…. Her day is coming

  14. An impeachment could take up all of next session and might provide a respite form the usual flood of meaningless resolutions and.social issues.

    (Personally I am waiting for legislation mandating the exclusive use of the left hand for butt-wiping, because the right hand is for greetings. It surprises me that this has never been addressed in the legislature, given all the other interest in who is doing what in the bathrooms.)

    But before proceeding, it might be a good idea to find out whom Noem plans to replace Ravnsborg with, for the 11-12 months before Marty gets it.

  15. Impeachment is not going to happen

    The court did not make any factual findings…there would need to be extensive hearings in the house not just a vote, because it is a horrible precedent to set to just vote like the national Democrats did with President Trump’s second impeachment.

  17. I wonder how many of the Ravnsborg supporters-at-all-costs are also anti-vaxxers. I suspect a correlation of common sense or lack thereof.

  18. Well – we are now only about 9 months away from Jackley taking him out at convention. Unfortunately we have over a year until he’s out of office. It would be a good idea for him to start looking for a place to land now.

    1. All I have heard from anyone around the state is how great Ravnsborg is doing as the AG, the best in a long time.

      Mary is just upset that her husband lost for the 2nd time at trying to be AG, this is her trying to get payback.

        1. Go ahead, ask any of them. I bet they would agree with Ravnsborg’s performance as AG as being solid and one of the best.

            1. And this was all led by Noem who wants Ravnsborg out to put her own person in. What is Noem hiding I wonder? If you go ask the individuals in those organizations they wouldn’t agree with asking for a resignation.

  19. “What would you say is the most obvious lie Ravnsborg told about “the events leading up to” the crash?”

    Him denying the use of his phone and not being distracted. I even question if he really didn’t know what he hit because he went back the next day. He knew what he hit and whatever conscience he had left was eating him up. He needed someone else to find the body that night so he could stick to his story and play dumb. When that didn’t happen, he had to go back.

    “How do you claim to know he wasn’t paying attention?”

    He didn’t know what he hit. If he were looking out the windshield, there is no way he didn’t know what he hit. A person standing upright on the side of the road is a lot different than a deer. Even in that split second, you are going to be able to know that wasn’t a deer. Anyone who has encountered someone out of nowhere on a highway in the dark will tell you it’s very easy to tell if it is a person or something else like a critter.

    “How do you claim to know Boever didn’t commit suicide by running into the drving lane?”

    Because Joe was hit on the shoulder from behind. Was he running backwards? This might be the dumbest speculative question I have ever seen considering the evidence that was provided by the investigation. They have the marks where his car frame scratched the pavement when he struck Joe and his passenger tire was a good 2ft outside the driving lane and at least a foot past the rumble strips. When you hit a deer or person at those speeds, the front of your vehicle is going to dive down and gouge the ground much more than you would think. I also understand everyone of those marking they placed on the road during the investigation because I have been on a lot of fatality accident scenes. Braking started on the shoulder after he was struck and there was no indication that he saw or attempted to miss what he hit. He didn’t react until Joe was hit.

      1. They are marked in the scene photos near where the impact happened. You know, when he drove on the shoulder of the road, struck joe, and then hit his brakes.

        1. State investigators concluded neither that Boever entered the driving lane nor that Ravnsborg saw him. You seem to be saying that’s definitive proof that Boever didn’t enter the driving lane, but you say Ravnsborg “had to go back” because he “knew what he hit.”

          That looks like a double standard, and I’m not sure how you decide when we have to blindly accept investigators’ conclusions and when we’re allowed to question them.

          Ravnsborg told state investigators he used his phone that night but wasn’t using it at the time of the crash, and they concluded that was true.

          You suggest Boever was “standing upright.” State investigators concluded he was “walking.” It isn’t clear to me how anyone who wasn’t there could know either of those things.

          When and where did investigators provide scene photos?

          1. Look at the investigative materials. How does a person walk without standing upright? They can tell he was standing up based on how he was struck and the damage to the car. If he were sitting or crawling, Jason’s vehicle would have driven over Joe. Jason knew he hit a person and played dumb. Jason lied about striking Joe in the middle of the road based on the evidence that his vehicle was across the line when he struck Joe. Based on the location of the damage, the impact site, and the braking pattern, it is clear that Joe was on the shoulder, upright, walking or standing still, when Jason crossed the white line and struck him. I would bet they concluded he was walking since he was traveling towards his vehicle. It’s possible he may have stopped to grab a chew, turn around to see what was approaching, or some other activity, but it is clear he was standing upright. Based on your questions, it is clear you are fishing. I’ve picked up enough vehicle parts and brain matter from highways to know you are really trying hard to sow doubt.

            1. I’ve seen blood pooled against the exposed skull of my late father after he skidded down a rural South Dakota highway, but if picking up brain matter enables you to read my mind, you win.

              Walking, standing, and turning around are three different things, and it still isn’t clear to me how anyone who wasn’t there could know which of those things, if any, Boever was doing.

              State investigators concluded neither that Boever entered the driving lane nor that Ravnsborg saw him. You seem to be saying that’s definitive proof that Boever didn’t enter the driving lane, but you say Ravnsborg “knew he hit a person and played dumb.”

              That looks like a double standard, and I’m still not sure how you decide when we have to blindly accept investigators’ conclusions and when we’re allowed to question them.

              When and where did investigators provide scene photos?

  20. I don’t know why so many people think he should have gone to court and faced the family, which seems to consist of two cousins, one of whom said Boever talked about killing himself by throwing himself into the path of a speeding car, the other being the one who picked him up after he wrecked his own truck and helped him avoid a DUI charge, (depending on how many other times Boever had done something like this, the cousin could be guilty of misprision of a felony) and left him home alone and suicidal, and finally, the estranged wife who didn’t live with Boever, wasn’t the one he called when he wrecked his truck, and is now hoping to rake in a bunch of cash in a wrongful death suit, because now he isn’t alive to pay alimony.

    What a great bunch of people. I wouldn’t want to run into any of them either.

  21. I really hope the obnoxious commenters stirring up the suicide theory and generally defending the AG at all costs are not doing so from state government computers at the AG’s office…

  22. “How do you claim to know Boever didn’t commit suicide by running into the drving lane?”

    What part of, “Boever was struck while walking on the shoulder” don’t you understand? This suicide idea needs to be squashed. I agree with the other poster, this is getting ridiculous what sort of misinformation is allowed to fly.

    1. It was Barnabas Nemec, Boever’s cousin, who said he talked about committing suicide by throwing himself in front of a speeding vehicle, and that this conversation occurred in December of 2019.
      It was Victor Nemec, Apparently, who said that in a different conversation the subject of suicide had come up, and at that time Boever said it wasn’t an option..

      That seems like suicide came up as a topic of conversation often enough in that family.,

        1. “No indication”?

          Didn’t Boever’s cousin insist that he check his blood sugar levels because of his mood that night? Was this just a typical late-evening stroll down the white line under black clouds after loading up on psychotropic drugs? Has anyone even put forward a theory about why he supposedly embarked on the long journey back to his crashed, disabled truck? Or about why he didn’t ask for a ride?

          And Ravnsborg drifts onto the rumble strip at precisely that spot? And never sees him?

          If the physical evidence at the scene leads you to believe it wasn’t a suicide, fine, but please spare us the “no indication” malarkey.

  23. This post get attention! Mary Fitzgerald is a member of the State
    House of Representatives. She is active and serving on the Interim
    Marijuana Study Committee with me.

    This is a bad situation for the AG, the State and Constituents.
    I am sorry for the pain it has caused to the Boever Family.

Comments are closed.