What a shit article, it literally skips the most important part and makes it seem like it was self-defense when it was planned. What happened is grossly misrepresented.
This is from https://somethingsbrewingcafe.ca/linkpost/460154/ :
According to police, Kizer traveled armed from Milwaukee to Volar’s home in Kenosha in June 2018. She shot him twice in the head, set fire to his house and took his car.
He deserved it and it’s sketchy as hell they let him go when they busted him with home made kiddie porn. Regardless, it’s illegal to take matters into your own hands.
it’s sketchy as hell they let him go when they busted him with home made kiddie porn.
The fuck!?!
Ummm yea this girl deserves a pay day for doing their job for them not punishment.
She can deserve both compensation for suffering and punishment for taking her own action. This is premeditated and she didn’t need to be there, but his actions clearly contributed negatively to her mental state.
Her morally good action was premeditated? Unthinkable!
If you want a society where premeditated extralegal violence is “good”, you can always go to Pakistan. That’s exactly what people who perform “honor killings” believe.
The developed world got rid of that when duels went out of fashion. The problem with killing someone to solve a problem is that it creates more problems. The person who died has friends, family, children, etc. who will not think your actions are justified. They will come for you and your family.
Obviously you don’t have good morals. Vigilantism is immoral…
Vigilantism is immoral
This is a category error. You wouldn’t say that “kicking is immoral,” or that “driving is immoral.” It just depends what you’re kicking and where you’re driving.
“Vigilantism” is the extrajudicial pursuit of justice. It involves breaking the law in some random corner of the world. However, none of that has any bearing on morality. The holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. What the Supreme Court is doing now is legal. That has no bearing on whether it’s moral.
“Vigilantism” means breaking the law;
That is an insufficient definition of vigilantism.
Why is vigilantism immoral but court systems, including corrupt ones, are not? Aren’t both simply a way to decide justice? What makes vigilantism inherently immoral compared to other justice systems?
Eta: “Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army. You know what I mean?” -Dimension20
I mean, it would be nice if all these f****** were actually scared of their victims.
I can’t say that just allowing vigilante outright is the right answer, but we could certainly afford to let her go like they let him go. Would be a nice use of a presidential pardon if it applies.
It’s illegal to take matters into your own hands.
The article is about justice, not “legality.” The question is about the size of the gap (or in this case the gaping chasm) between what is legal in our society and what is moral.
Any rational agent in this woman’s circumstances should do what she did. I understand that doing the right thing is often illegal, which makes some people uncomfortable, but you know maybe that’s why the gap between justice and legality is so vast. That’s why our Supreme Court is a joke.
Any rational agent in this woman’s circumstances should do what she did.
I think that’s really the crux of the issue. She didn’t report him to the police but an other girl did and there was an ongoing investigation which she probably would of cemented if she came forward. Instead she resorted to what essentially is revenge killing and went out of her way to do it
I understand situation when taking things into your own hands is acceptable, like in self defense or when the law has really failed you and there isn’t any other option, but I don’t think this was one of those situations.
There is nothing moral about an ordinary citizen handing out a death sentence, without even trying to get help. Society has systems in place to dispense justice and I don’t even think a death sentence is moral in those cases. Not to mention this man was most likely going to prison, had a mountain of evidence against him and had been charged 12 days prior to the shooting.
when the law has really failed you
This is the actual crux of the issue. Justice doesn’t recognize national borders, governing bodies, or laws. The very fact that we — as thinking, feeling creatures capable of suffering — allow a bureaucracy to monopolize violence and distribute justice on our behalf is a tenuous miracle (and a biiiig illusion).
We are entitled to justice. It’s an innate aspect of our rational nature (what Immanuel Kant called membership in the kingdom of ends). We permit a “justice system” to act on our behalf for the sake of practical efficiency, but that’s a tenuous contract, and when it fails to hold up its end of the bargain…
That’s the thing though, I dont’t think it had failed her. Not only was it in the process of dispensing justice, but it wasn’t even doing it at her request since it seems she never reported him. The justice system isn’t failing when it’s being ignored by the victim.
We are entitled to justice but that doesn’t entail killing folks on a whim when it feels justified. We have systems in place and we need to at least give them a chance before taking matters into our own hands.
I understand your point that not all forms of vigilantism are bad. For instance, I applaud the ordinary citizens that were fighting against the cartels in mexico a while back. I just think in this case it wasn’t justified.
We are entitled to justice but that doesn’t entail killing folks on a whim
I appreciate the conversation. I doubt we disagree on the fundamentals. However, I have to push back against this characterization. There was nothing whimsical about her decision or this guy’s culpability.
It’s also important not to conflate our ability to know something definitively (our epistemic confidence) with the truth.
If what she claims about this guy is true, then she is morally justified. If it’s not true, then she isn’t. Our uncertainty about the matter is a separate issue and regrettably not the subject of this litigation.
Any rational agent in this woman’s circumstances should do what she did.i
She set fire to his house after killing him, putting neighbors and firefighter’s lives at risk.
Ok, except that. Don’t burn down the neighborhood.
deleted by creator
When the law and authorities fail to give you Justice, you go ahead and get it yourself. Just don’t get caught.
People don’t get let go with child porn. That’s a hard claim to swallow.
People are let go when they fully rape children, let alone for child porn, what are you even talking about?
Is he a cop? We all know cops are not held to the same standards as normal people.
You know what don’t bother replying, I see by your profile you have issues and I’m no longer interested I anything you have to say.
You mean you lost and you want to quit. I accept your resignation and my win.
My profile has a lot of posts that are anti-trafficking and child marriage. You do seem like the type of person who would be bothered by that.
…what?
No you’re just running with the prosecution’s theory of the case.
The article gives her account, which was denied to her in court as a defense.
One night, when he wanted to have sex and she brushed him off, she said she fell to the ground and he jumped on top of her, trying to force off her clothes. She shot him twice in the head, and then, the police said, set his body on fire.
She first said another women shot him and she didn’t know him, then she said she didn’t remember, then finally the account you mentioned.
It was also a gun that she brought to his house, it’s hard to pretend it was just a lucky coincidence.
Hard to pretend someone in her situation might want protection? Really?
And if her story was that bad then a jury would see it. Removing her ability to use a self defence argument is just blatant rail roading.
She put herself in a position where she needed to use it if that’s what happened. Going to the police or literally not going to his house and doing anything else would have offered her the same protection.
Guns are suppose to be a last resort, she used it as her first.
On top off that she burned down the house most likely to hide evidence and then lied about her part in the murder.
So did Kyle Rittenhouse. In the exact same town. I wonder why he was able to use self defence and not her?
And he wasn’t a victim of sex trafficking either.
That’s funny because I was going to bring him up and decided not to. I think it’s insane he got off and what he did was very much murder as well, he knowingly and needlessly put himself in a dangerous situation as to warrant his use of a deadly weapon. There’s some similarities between the two cases in that regard imo.
he knowingly and needlessly put himself in a dangerous situation
That criticism applies to every single person present in Kenosha that evening.
A large percentage of the individuals present that evening were armed, some legally, some illegally, including Joshua Ziminski (who fired into the air just before Rosenbaum’s attack) and Gaige Grosskreutz (the fourth person to attempt to use deadly force on Rittenhouse that evening, and the one who instigated the second and third attacks). “Being armed” was not at all an unusual act in Kenosha that night.
Despite hundreds of hours of video having been captured that night, precisely none shows Rittenhouse instigating any sort of violence that night.
Are you actually asking why he was able to use self defense and she didn’t?
He was not threatening or instigating. When verbally provoked, he de-escalated by stepping away. He was legally present, just like every other participant. He was legally armed: state law has a specific exemption that allows older minors to carry rifles and shotguns. That fact always seems to get ignored, but it was that exemption that led the judge to dismiss that charge.
Many of the “protesters” (for example, Joshua Ziminski and Gaige Grosskreutz) were armed, some legally, some not. His decision to carry was not unusual.
Unlike many, including Joseph Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse was peaceably assembled; hours upon hours of video evidence shows he was not engaged in any sort of violent act, even after being occasionally verbally provoked. The worst you can say was that his presence in Kenosha that night wasn’t prudent, but that is true for everyone else who was there as well. You cannot reasonably argue that his presence was unusual, prohibited or that he was antagonizing; the video evidence conclusively demonstrates he was not. He was legally allowed to be where he was, and doing the things he was doing.
He was on camera, literally putting out fires set by arsonists, which is why one of those arsonists targeted him.
When physically attacked, he retreated, on multiple cameras and at a run, while being chased by an individual who had masked his face by tying his shirt over his head. Rittenhouse retreated until cornered. He was not obligated to retreat; he could have “Stood his ground”, but he elected to try to run away from the threat. He did not fire until that attacker had actually grabbed for his gun, which means he reasonably believed he faced a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm; that lethal force was necessary to stop that threat; and that he stopped using such force as soon as the threat had ended.
After stopping that first attack, he further retreated from numerous additional attackers, including a man he tried to viciously kick him in the head, a man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard, and a man who pointed a handgun at his head. He fired on all three, missing the second attacker, killing the third attacker. A fourth held up his hands, pointing a handgun away from Rittenhouse, and initially indicating he posed no threat to Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse held his fire, and began lowering his rifle. Only after the fourth attacker re-engaged, pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse, did Rittenhouse fire on him, wounding him, and ending his use of force as soon as that fourth attacker’s threat ended. He then continued to retreat, attempting to turn himself in to police, who directed him to leave. Again, all of this is on camera.
The fourth attacker - Gaige Grosskreutz - played a pivotal role in the second, third, and fourth attacks. He was live streaming. He is on camera talking with Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse ran from the the scene of the first attack. Rittenhouse is on camera, explaining that he was running to the police. Grosskreutz then, on camera, called for mob violence against Rittenhouse, instigating the second and third attack, while personally committing the fourth. He knew that Rittenhouse was trying to get to police, but he tried to kill him anyway.
The criticism of Rittenhouse rests on the assumption that he wasn’t allowed to carry a rifle in Kenosha that night. When we eliminate that assumption and start from the premise that he was allowed to be there, his behavior inoffensive and not unusual, his actions are a near-textbook example of self defense under extraordinary circumstances.
Kizer initially lost a ruling about introducing evidence that she had been trafficked. However, she won both of the appeals on that issue, and she was able to raise a “self defense” claim. Even her “confession” during police interrogation was thrown out: the state could not use it as evidence if it went to trial. She won every major ruling in her case, and set herself up with a fairly good legal defense.
So why did she lose her case? Because she quit. She refused to defend herself any further. She pleaded “guilty” rather than asking a jury to acquit her on the basis of temporary insanity from being trafficked. The law gave her ample opportunity to continue fighting, but she threw in the towel.
It is a travesty that prosecutors stacked charges on charges, threatening her with life in prison on the killing, and decades for arson and car theft. Accepting a plea deal fucked her over, and largely extinguished her ability to further appeal. But, ultimately, she gave up, pleaded guilty, and that’s all she wrote.
That’s not the important part. A jury can ignore all that. The law allows them to look at how she was victimized, and determine that her response was justified in light of the violence committed against her.
The important part didn’t happen when she killed him in 2018. The important part happened in May, 2024. From wiki:
On May 9, 2024, Kizer pled guilty to one felony count of second-degree reckless homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. On August 19, she was sentenced to 11 years in prison.[10]
It’s pretty hard for a jury to acquit her when she enters a “guilty” plea.
She pled guilty because she was denied a self defense argument. At which point they’re left with her admitting to shooting him with no legal reason.
No part of that comment is true.
While a trial court did initially rule that way, that ruling was overturned on appeal, and she also won in the Wisconsin supreme court:
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals overturned the trial court in June 2021, holding that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the affirmative defense law, that the affirmative defense applied to any offense, including violent crimes, committed as a “direct result” of trafficking, and that Kizer could present evidence in support of the affirmative defense at trial
…
In July 2022, the state supreme court upheld the appeals court’s decision overturning the trial court’s ruling that barred Kizer from raising the affirmative defense. In a 4-3 opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the law provided trafficking victims with an affirmative defense to any offense, including violent crimes, committed as a direct result of the trafficking.
Furthermore, her confession was thrown out:
In October 2023, the trial court ruled that statements Kizer made during her interrogation by the police were not admissible because she did not receive a Miranda warning and her attorney was not present.[28]
She won on every issue she raised, yet she still decided to enter a guilty plea.
What she did was illegal, but they could have chosen to completely ignore it the same way they ignored her abuser’s many crimes. The fact that they didn’t shows which side they’re on.
The courts take a very dim view of people taking the law into their own hands. That’s what she did. We can all understand why she did it. But we really don’t want people going around shooting each other for revenge. It creates a spiral of violence that leads to societal breakdown. It’s the whole reason a justice system exists in the first place, going all the way back to the time when the king was the judge.
Yes but the justice system is flawed against poor people.
How can you trust a justice system that sentences only 6 months jail for the rapist Brock “the rapist” Turner.
The justice system is flawed and it’s not a matter of trust. You shouldn’t be trusting people you don’t know in the first place. If you’re looking for something to place your trust in, it’s yourself and your understanding of your own incentives and the incentives of others around you. When those incentives align, things tend to work out better for you than when they’re opposed.
The justice system is a misnomer. It’s not about fundamental justice. It’s the right arm of the state, the monopoly on organized violence. When we celebrate vigilantism and revenge killing, we celebrate the weakening of the state’s monopoly and lean toward anarchy and chaos. If that’s what you want, fine, but now you have a very strong current to swim against.
What happened to this woman was terrible and no one deserves that. But she was no longer under the control of her abuser. She was safe in another town. She could have chosen to get on with her life. Instead she chose to kill the guy. Is she any better off now that he’s dead and she’s in jail? I don’t think so, but you’d have to ask her.
We don’t know what’s going on in her head when she escaped from him. For all we know every waking hour thinking about him and what he did to her. But you’re right I’d have to ask her.
Understanding the human psych is better left to the professional.
People always says of taking the high moral road. But we will never really know until it happened to us.
Maybe if she had access to a professional beforehand things would have turned out differently. We look at the justice system as having failed her but really all of society failed her long before that. We have no sense of community anymore.
Heck, I’ve been learning about all the car-centric urban planning we’ve done over the last century in North America. Look up “stroads” on YouTube and you can see lifeless our society has become because of all the stupidity at city hall.
Ahh clearly not premeditated. Lady clearly forgot she needs to put on a bodycam to film it all and some shiny shitstained badge to avoid all this nonsense… she’d probably even get a job in the next county* over or a medal if she followed these simple steps.
*Edit cuz stupid autocorrect doesn’t seem to think counties exist anymore
I agree. If she would have a badge and uniform they would have simply suspended her with pay. She would take a few weeks vacation and carry on with her life like nothing.
I’m being serious…
Is that true? The person she killed was an actual criminal and not an autistic child or guy armed with a sandwich.
The premeditation is unfortunately what got her. Now, if she accidentally bumped into him while driving a car, however…
She did the right thing with forethought and premeditation? How dare she!
What got her is her own “guilty” plea. This case never went to trial.
Thank you for your comment. It realy helped me decide on the clickbaiteness of the posted link.
I think ultimately the sentencing is fine, the problem is that the criminal system failed at every step of the way… until it was time to punish her. He shouldn’t have been let go in the first place. Since the justice system is known to handle harsher sentences to people of color, it’s easy to be even more displeased with this result.
Since she’s going to prison, where her mental health will not be treated appropriately for the horrible things done to her by the person she murdered, I disagree, the sentencing is not fine.
I do agree that the “justice system” failed at every other step along the way. I just think it failed here too. She should be sentenced and appropriately confined, but not in prison.
I think because they failed her, her actions are justified.
deleted by creator
She ought to be given a medal 🏅
deleted by creator
Vigilante justice is not acceptable, let alone a vigilante killing
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New York Times:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/opinion/chrystul-kizer-prison-sentence.html
It is justice. Look at the facts on the case.
How does that boot taste?
Normally Im all ACAB fuck the system. But the evidence in the case and facts make this ruling just even if it seems unfair.
Her abuser was a piece of shit, no denying that. And while the world is probably a better place with him dead, the means by which it was accomplished was illegal.
If the court had done anything but find her guilty, it just sends a signal to any would be vigilantes that if justice system didn’t give you an outcome you wanted quickly as you wanted, then it’s okay to take justice into your own hands.
While I do hope she gets a pardon and those who didn’t take her pleas seriously when she tried to report him become subject to thorough investigation and permanently removed from the criminal justice system, we absolutely can not go back to frontier justice of people killing each other because the local sheriff and deputies didn’t want to or know how to deal with it.
We have similar cases where people were found not guilty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Hughes
Why was it okay then in that case but now for this black girl’s case, it will suddenly erode society if -checks notes- pedophiles die
Nice strawman. Surely race was the only differing factors in these two cases, and it had nothing to do with with the fact that Kizer traveled 40 miles to shoot her abuser after escaping him months ago (that his convinction failing is the real injustice here) and took a plea-deal to avoid a life sentence for premeditated murder, where as Hughes lived with her abuser, was beaten the night of killing, called the cops, watcher her abuser talk the cops down, beat her again, starved her, raped her, threatened her and her children and burned her school books before she killed him and took her children to the police station to turn herself in.
But yes please insist these two cases are like for like.
I didn’t say race was the only issue, but you’d have to be blindingly, overwhelmingly ignorant to think race doesn’t play a part in sentencing.
The cases are alike in that both women were put through horrific situations that caused them to react violently. I think that’s pretty similar.
Read your damn source. You posted it. It’s obvious they are completely different.
It’s like comparing apples to oranges, which is easy to do because both are round fruits and pretty comparable
Like you can’t understand what a reactive abuse case (which centers on what trauma does to the brain) has to do with a girl killing the man who trafficked her?
I can understand it but that’s not the real question is it? The question posed was why one person was treated differently by the courts than the other.
The answer was because one person attacked their active abuser in self defense while the other escaped,then months later, in an act of revenge, planned and executed their murder and arson.
Of course, another key difference is that she took a plea deal. Which means she never actually went to trial. Her legal team knew self defense was never gonna fly either.
Kizer wasn’t “found” guilty. She entered a “guilty” plea back in May.
Hughes entered a “not guilty” plea, and took her case to trial. A jury agreed with her plight and acquitted her.
Kizer might have been similarly exonerated by another jury, but she did not avail herself of her right to a trial by a jury of her peers.
Yes, I’m aware of that.
Wow, bootlicker, term of '24?
