Statement from South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg

@SoDakCampaigns

Statement by Jason Ravnsborg
August 26, 2021

On September 12, 2020, two families were changed forever.

First and foremost, I am very sorry Joe Boever lost his life in this accident. I am sorry to the entire family for the loss of their loved one. They have had to deal with the pain, anger, and sadness of this accident.

With respect for Joe, his family, and the judicial process, I have fully cooperated with the investigation from the beginning and refrained from making statements to the media.

While nothing I say will bring Joe back, I believe it’s appropriate to share a few of my thoughts at this time.

Joe’s death weighs heavily on me and always will. I’ve often wondered why the accident occurred and all the things that had to have happened to make our lives intersect. I’ve wished thousands of times our paths would have crossed under different circumstances.

The media has reported many untrue, and misleading things they want you to believe are facts.  Partisan opportunists from both sides of the aisle have manufactured rumors, conspiracy theories and made statements in direct contradiction to the evidence all sides agreed upon.  These are the same people who try to take others down at any cost.

I ran to be your attorney general because I believe in the law; I believe in fairness, due process, and doing what’s right. Now, having experienced the legal system from both sides, I renew my commitment to be transparent and responsive to the needs of the people of South Dakota.

We have built an incredible team of hard-working professionals who seek to serve you in the Attorney General’s office each day. We’ve made significant accomplishments in record time.

We still face challenges. We will continue the dialogue about marijuana and how to regulate it. We’re finalizing the terms of the $26 billion opioid settlement to address opioids and fentanyl and still battling the meth epidemic.

I do not know all the Lord has in store for me, but I trust in Him. As I continue my service as your attorney general, I’ll keep fighting for you, just as I have since the day I took office. May God bless each of you, and may God continue to bless South Dakota.

–

49 thoughts on “Statement from South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg”

    1. He plead no contest to charges that amount to negligence. That negligence killed someone. You are acting like nobody was responsible, and that just isn’t borne out by the facts.

      Also, can’t say I am surprised that he is already laying the foundations for his next campaign.

      1. and how does he get a fair trial when Noem released the videos and the judge said the judge decided it would be a court trial not a jury trial…..

        1. Let’s moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove those goalposts. First, you said he did nothing wrong. Now, once told this was not a great argument, you quickly move on to “NO FAIR TRIAL ANYWAY.” I am taking this change of topic to mean that you acknowledge you spoke too hastily re: your “nothing wrong” claim.

          Further, I am perplexed by the two arguments you present here.

          1) Releasing the tape would poison the pool of potential jurors.
          2) It was a bench trial.

          If the jury pool was supposedly so poisoned by the release of *checks notes* WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, then a bench trial deals with the problem. You need to start thinking some of these arguments through.

          1. Noem was told not to release the tapes, she did it anyway for political reasons. She tainted the jury pool.

  3. Whose politics? The conservative governor? Numerous conservatives have spoken up saying he should resign.

    We better figure out a way to blame this on democrats.

    1. Are you kidding, Noem has stated she wants him out so she can put her own guy in as AG. How is that not politics??

      1. And the Fraternal order of police? How about Spencer Gosch? I know it is more convenient to focus your ire entirely at the governor, but she isn’t alone here.

        1. Did all of them vote that, or did Noem get to a few people to put pressure on Ravnsborg???

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

              1. And there it is. Police are wonderful people with precious few faults when discussing ANTIFA, but humans who screw up when discussing the AG. This friggin site.

                1. So what’s your position? Are police officers immune from corruption and honest mistakes?

  6. I tend to believe this was an accident. However, even if it was an accident, I am terribly disappointed that he didn’t have the guts to show up and enter the plea himself, and then stand in front of the courthouse and apologize. This is a basic and fundamental part of being an adult — or even a teenager — 1) admit your mistakes, and 2) apologize openly. This is why many of us get disgusted by politicians — they deny everything until the end. Then sit comfortably in their office and avoid the hard part of being an adult. Had he showed up and made the plea and looked everyone in the eye to apologize, many would have still thought he got a deal, but many of us would have respected him for being a man. I know – the next argument will be ‘oh, but the civil trial.’ If he can issue a written statement, he can sure as hell stand up and use his own words. #coward

        1. Not paying attention to driving, leaving the roadway and driving on the shoulder, striking a person and not even taking enough time to look around to find his body. We all know he knew what he hit. If he didn’t, there is no way he was looking out the windshield and he wouldn’t have returned the next day. Whatever conscience he had left was telling him to go back because he knew. He knew.

          1. My question was directed to Troy, and I’m not sure how Ravnsborg could have credibly apologized for the things you’ve listed without pleading guilty.

            “We all know he knew what he hit”? I definitely don’t know that, but it’s the only obvious reason he would have lied to the 911 operator about the location of the initial collision. Most people probably wouldn’t have cared if he’d hit a deer on the shoulder.

            So apparently either Ravnsborg had no doubt that the initial collision happened in the driving lane, or he knowingly neglected to seek medical attention for Boever. I don’t see how anything in between makes sense.

            By the way, I believe Ravnsborg returned to Highmore the next day because he’d borrowed a personal vehicle from the sheriff to get home after the crash.

  8. As a parent, I’ve always tried to teach my kids the difference between right and wrong and no contest.

      1. Or: “I don’t want to make statements that could be twisted by my opponents’ lawyers in a wrongful death lawsuit.”

        1. There is already going to be one, and his conviction sure ain’t gonna help. But yeah, let’s go with that.

          1. He plead no contest…it wont be used against him in the civil trial, that is why people do exactly that.

      1. If my two options are Ravnsborg or Jackley, I’ll take the one whose scandals aren’t “Killed a pedestrian.” If there are other possibilities, I’m open to them.

        1. EB 5 ; Gear Up; …..no one died there…wait

          Laura Zylstra–still waiting for an explanation for the retaliation of his own employees

          Everyone has focused on the AG and Marty has gotten a pass….he has a lot to answer for yet

          1. I’m not determined to get Jackley in. What other solid options exist besides these two?

    2. No way in the world would Noem pick Jackley….I think that is what this is all about no one wants Noem to pick the next AG

  11. Dude is shameless.

    Never forget his victim blaming here, which is certain to be on full display for the civil trial.

    No good prosecutor would ever do that. Ever.

  12. Softball charges and “special ” treatment to start with. Remember when an investigator told Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg during questioning, “His face was in your windshield, Jason, think about that.”’ Speeding, on his phone both crimes. Watch how he may avoid liability by placing the blame on the victim. Per Section 20-9-2 of South Dakota Legal Statues state; that if the plaintiff’s fault was slight and the defendant’s gross, the plaintiff is liable to receive compensation for damages. However, it is strictly mentioned that if the plaintiff’s fault is proved to be more than slight, they can no longer receive any compensation. Ravnsborg’s argument may be; The deceased should not have been walking, it was all his fault.

    1. His defense may be that Boever shouldn’t have committed suicide by running into the path of his car.

      1. Boever was suicidal and way over-medicated that night. He crashed his truck earlier and was stumbling around on the road.

        1. He has a family and is no longer here. May Joe Boever, by the mercy of God, Rest In Peace.

        2. This is 100% speculative and should be considered false. It is already proven Joe was struck while on the shoulder and other than crashing his truck earlier, this is all bs.

          1. It’s hard to imagine how Ravnsborg wouldn’t have seen him if he’d been “stumbling around,” but the autopsy report cited 190 nanograms per milliliter of Lorazepam in Boever’s system. My understanding is that investigators were unable to account for 78 pills.

              1. Lorazepam can cause suicidal ideation. Committing suicide by throwing yourself into the path of a car has the effect of making that car strike you.

                If the autopsy report cites 190 nanograms per milliliter of Lorazepam in Boever’s system, and investigators are unable to account for 78 pills, the statement that Boever was suicidal and overmedicated isn’t “100% speculative.”

Comments are closed.