What, don’t you go back to check on your roadkill the next morning?
I do if my car is still there. From TFA:
"Ravnsborg said he called 911 and then looked around his vehicle in the dark, using a cell phone flashlight. He said all he could see were pieces of his vehicle.
"After Hyde County Sheriff Mike Volek arrived, the two men surveyed the damage and filled out paperwork for his car to be repaired. “At no time did either of us suspect that I had been in an accident with a person,” Ravnsborg said.
"With his car wrecked, Ravnsborg said he borrowed the sheriff’s personal car to return to his home in Pierre. The next morning, he and chief of staff Tim Bormann drove back to return the sheriff’s car.
“They stopped at the spot of the accident, where Ravnsborg said he discovered Boever’s body in the grass just off the shoulder of the road.”
There is so much wrong here. Why didn’t a deputy arrive instead of the sheriff? How did the sheriff get home if he loaned a car to the AG? Finally, if the body was found at the site of the accident, why couldn’t they see it the night before? Please don’t repeat the lie that they used the flashlight app on their phone. I don’t know any law enforcement officer who uses their phone instead of a flashlight.
Finally, the AG claimed that they went back to specifically look for the deer. “Ravnsborg borrowed the sheriff’s personal vehicle to drive back to Pierre, he said. He then returned to the scene of the crash the following morning on his way to return the sheriff’s vehicle. He and his chief of staff stopped to look for the injured animal again, finding Boever’s body in the grass.”
(2) As a person who has drunk way too much alcohol during the SIX MONTHS of Trumpian quarantine, I am suspicious of anyone whose judgment of the drinking of others rests on his ability to tell the difference between “a Coke” and “a Coke” that has rum, whiskey, or some other alcohol in it.
But the problem with that is that the sheriff’s deputy (presumably) wasn’t wasted, and apparently both of them looked for whatever the tiny-faced drunken douchebag hit. And then the tiny-faced drunken douchebag went back the next day to get his car, and–the Dakotas being flat–discovered that there was in fact a dead gentleman, at which point he called the authorities again.
Again, I am pretty annoyed that I am having to jump to the defense of a tiny-faced Republican douchebag here, because the fact that he was returning from a likely-drunken Republican frat party where similar tiny-faced Republican douchebags raised money to keep brown children in cages, and the fact that he then then struck and killed another human being with his car, are viscerally disgusting. But I am not convinced that the @Beschizza take on this story is entirely correct.
I think there may be a small detail you’re missing that makes this seem a little less straightforward. Ravnsborg was driving to return the sheriff’s car when, according to him, he and his aide stopped at the scene of the accident to search for a deer again. This is the part that doesn’t really ring at all true.
If he genuinely thought he had hit a deer, it doesn’t make any sense at all for him and his aide to stop at the scene of the accident to look in the ditches for a dead deer. If, however, he knew that there was likely a human body somewhere along that ditch and wanted to be able to frame how it was found, then it makes a lot more sense that he stopped with another witness to “find” the body.
With a flashlight app. The average Joe may not have a flashlight in their trunk, but I find it surprising that the actual sheriff didn’t have a mag lite in his car that night. Maybe he did, but that’s not clear from the AG’s statement. What is clear is that they easily spotted the victim the next day off just off the road very close to the debris. Did they really even bothered to walk around and look?
I’m not convinced that the AG’s take of the events is entirely correct.
Agreed the written FACTS in the article are rather strewn. Example: : "He died hitting the pavement after hitting a mailbox and tree. Like, yeah, the pavement was the ender cause he did not move after hitting the pavement, regardless of the mailbox and tree he struck first and secondly…
Heard from 3rd hand witness accounts Bryant mounted the south side sidewalk which is the east bound lane, entering while travelling in the west bound land (north side) with the bike courier holding onto the drivers side door handle, drove the courier into the stationary obstacles, then left the scene to drop Mrs. Bryant at a close by hotel then returned to the scene. Intent was obvious although over looked judiciously.
Or one of those halogen spot lights most cruisers have to specifically light up the area of an accident or get good lighting for recording the DUI dance.
