No one in good faith even argued it was some mastermind plan but Fugu seems to think otherwise of us.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Breaking: South Dakota attorney general reported hitting a deer in his car, left the scene, cops found body of a man afterwards
- Thread starter Lightning Count
- Start date
- News
I disagree that trying to get rid of a car after an accident goes to the MR of a hit-and-run (it's likely equivocal at best, especially if he's as shrewd about it as we're pretending he just naturally is for the purpose of this hypothetical), but even leaving that aside you're assuming he's going to get caught. This is much harder to do if the police aren't told where to look. And of course even if he does get caught he's only roughly in the position he's in now of having everyone already believe that he's guilty.
Ik, which is why I quoted them to push back on that. The only way it makes sense is if he was drunk and panicked about the added charges for driving while intoxicated. There is 0 reason for him to leave the scene otherwise, because as AG he should know that he HAS to check what he actually hit.
I mean, it would probably be easy to leave a car in a garage for a long time, take it through a car wash, etc. Unless his car had some rare paint or his license plate ripped off, I don't really know see why we'd expect the police to match his car to this accident.
edit: anyway, I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about really. The guy's an idiot to deserves to be in jail for a hit and run. That his hit-and-run was traced back to him because he was overtly trying to cover up the crime doesn't really change that fact, but add to his rap-sheet.
There's no other reason for him to have hit a person and just kept driving like it was nothing, the only thing that makes sense is that he saw he hit someone and panicked. Him just hitting a massive living thing and continuing his drive without any kind of stop or even looking at what he hit is absurd.
Sure, but this is agnostic to whether he knew he hit a person or not. A guy driving drunk worried about being caught driving drunk is just as likely to do this after hitting a deer that they thought was a deer as they are to do it after hitting a person that they thought was a deer.
Edit: Just for emphasis, the post you quoted here is me responding to people asserting that he lied about his knowledge that he hit a person as some sort of way of establishing plausible deniability, which is completely distinct from asserting that he might have called it in because he was drunk and panicked.
I guess if he was incredibly drunk he might not have known he hit anything until he woke up in the morning and saw his car. But . . . that doesn't help his case.
No one just hits a deer and continues driving full speed like it's nothing. In order for this to be the case, he had to hit the guy, not stop at all or even look at what he hit, and just keep going. I've never heard of that happening, at least not in a civilian vehicle
The question of whether it's plausible in the circumstances that a person would confuse a person for a deer is a factual question that neither of us have the answer to. Country roads can be pretty damn dark, and besides it's in line with your own proposal that this was a drunken panic option that he would be less than thorough in his investigation.
Well yeah no one has the answer to any of these questions, only person who was there is the AG. It seems very unlikely that he hit a human being with no knowledge that it was a human being, and then checked to see what he hit (which he is legally obligated to do), still confused the person for a deer, and then drove off. Either way he is fucked but this is not a convincing explanation
That's not an explanation I'm advancing though. I'm saying foremost that the theory that calling it in was a calculated move to stay ahead of the police is bogus and implausible, and that the panic move theory is about equally plausible whether he actually knew he hit a person or not. The factual circumstances surely influence how likely it is that he could not have known he hit a person, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the calling in tells us anything about the likelihood that he knew he hit a person.
I'd guess there are folks out there who might if they were driving a half ton pick up with bull bars in the front but in a 2011 ford taurus? Nope. He's also the AG and should know that he's supposed to stop and check out the scene.
I don't think anyone was suggesting it was a calculated move tbh.
Right
Where are we getting that Ravnsborg waited a long time before calling the crash in? The NYT article says he called it in at 10:24p, and he was coming from an event a little over an hour away that was scheduled to end at 8:30p. If he stayed to the end and it didn't run long, he got to the crash site around 9:30p (Google would put it around 9:40p, but I think it's safe to assume he was speeding,) so that's less than an hour between crash and call.
Much of the first page of this thread is people arguing that he called it in despite knowing he hit a person to establish some kind of plausible deniability. It starts at the third post.
That doesn't make it calculating, the only suggestion is that he says he hit a deer instead of a person despite knowing he hit a person.
No one suggested that, the article says he made the call when he got home m.
The site of the event and the site of the crash are over an hour away from each other and it's not uncommon for events to run long or for locals to corner a state official after the event to bend their ear over some minor local spat.
So he... Called it in to accidentally create plausible deniability? How is that at all an honest interpretation of that argument?
My bad, I though I saw some people saying he waited for the alcohol to leave his system before calling it in.
No, he calls in something that doesn't require a police presence or anyone to go to the scene of the accident because he does not want anyone to go to the scene or the accident or detain him at that time.
No, but calling it in as hitting a deer also means the alcohol will leave his system before anyone finds the body, cops don't respond to a deer carcass on the side of the road.
Car must have suffered damages, it would have been worst to say nothing.
Can anyone explain what this quote means?
"Ravnsborg "placed the call to 911 right after the accident, my understanding is that he called from the location of his vehicle," Bormann wrote."
Like, he was home and called from the car, or is he saying he stopped to survey the damage and called from the scene?
"Ravnsborg "placed the call to 911 right after the accident, my understanding is that he called from the location of his vehicle," Bormann wrote."
Like, he was home and called from the car, or is he saying he stopped to survey the damage and called from the scene?
Not really, not in the way you were suggesting as part of some larger plan to obfuscate the hit and run and hide evidence.
Reminds me of the guy who hit me going 70+mph while I waited at a red light. He tried to get away but his truck was too messed up. Then he fled into the brush. He turned himself in later. He was probably drunk as shit that night, but no one will ever know for sure.
The timeline posted above says he called an hour after the accident, but this seems to suggest he called...at the accident site? Which makes it even more implausible that he thought the man he just hit was a deer, if you are waiting around at the crash site to make a call to police there is no way you can't see it's a person you just hit.
I could imagine it if he wasn't looking at the road. (Texting while driving etc.)
I didn't suggest that it was part of some larger plan, I suggested that asserting that he would cover his bases so well in one context and then not at all in another is absurd and makes for a highly implausible theory. And again, as I said to you, if the assertion is that he made a rash, drunk decision then sure, that's plausible, but it's equally plausible whether he knew he hit a person or not so that theory cannot at all be connected to the posters saying "he did it to cover up a hit and run" since the logic is equally applicable if he actually just hit a deer.
It's about 45 minutes from the site of the accident to his home town (probably less considering his traffic record,) but some clarity would be helpful.
Just imagine if an autopsy finds that the victim bled out overnight and may have lived if they were rushed to hospital.
That's how I interpreted the statement coming from the AG's Chief of Staff. But it's written with just enough wiggle room to make an argument that he called from his house, which technically would be where his car was at that moment.
I'm just reaching here, because ultimately they could locate where the call was made from phone records
The idea of him hitting a human being, thinking it was a definitively a deer, then checking the scene and confirming it was deer (despite it being a human being) and then driving away is incredibly implausible to the point of absurdity, especially if he called from the crash site (this is still unclear).
Okay, agreed. I'm not advancing that theory, though; I'm arguing that there's a categorical lack of critical thinking about the meaning of events in this thread.
Well we know he called the police so if what I just laid out is incredibly implausible then there aren't many alternative explanations for why he called the police and said he hit a deer.
You already agreed that him thinking he hit a deer is extremely implausible though.
He was probably drunk and / or high. He probably figured it was better to run and claim he thought he hit a deer rather than risk getting caught killing someone while DUI.
You would need to be going extremely fast to propel a deer or human far enough from your car to not see what you've just hit once you've stopped, or have continued driving a good distance to "reasonably" not see anything
I don't know the laws of the state where this occurred and I don't care to check right now, but the amount of users posting entire multi-paragraph essays on what happened exactly, including the intent of the AT and mental steps taken in covering up the incident, gives me the impression that actually weighing in won't be useful. People have a narrative already set in their heads, no point in really talking about it until it develops further.
Not true at all, depends entirely on the environment in which the accident occurs.
Do you drive? If so, are you a total idiot? Would you ever crash into something the size of a deer and not pull over immediately in any situation? Also, have you ever actually hit a deer? I have (technically, it ran into me). I would never confuse it with a person.
No I didn't. I can think of many ways that it would be plausible. Maybe he didn't check. Maybe he did check, but it was dark. Maybe he did check, but it was the type of accident where it's unclear what you hit. Maybe he did check, but in a (possibly intentionally) insufficient way. There are so many possibilities here.