A Milwaukee woman has been jailed for 11 years for killing the man that prosecutors said had sex trafficked her as a teenager.
The sentence, issued on Monday, ends a six-year legal battle for Chrystul Kizer, now 24, who had argued she should be immune from prosecution.
Kizer was charged with reckless homicide for shooting Randall Volar, 34, in 2018 when she was 17. She accepted a plea deal earlier this year to avoid a life sentence.
Volar had been filming his sexual abuse of Kizer for more than a year before he was killed.
Kizer said she met Volar when she was 16, and that the man sexually assaulted her while giving her cash and gifts. She said he also made money by selling her to other men for sex.
I am outraged, a plea deal to avoid life imprisonment? What the fuck did I just read?!
This guy trafficked, raped and tortured her, and other underage women. Police did jack shit. And she was supposed to be watching him just walk away? Grotesque.
Any jailtime is ridiculous. She’s been in prison for 8 years. The judge had a chance to try and rebuild her life, but they gave her punishment for getting trapped in a bad situation. What’s the issue, does the judge think she’s going to go out and start shooting other rapists and traffickers?
If this was how my cards were dealt, I would likely make it my life’s mission.
This country certainly goes all in for cruel and unusual punishment.
Well the very act of shooting someone in the head twice, burning their home down, and stealing their car is cruel and unusual punishment.
Despite what everyone in the comments seems to think you’re not legally protected from going John Wick on someone regardless of how much they’ve wronged you or if the system failed you.
They were dead when they got shot in the head, everything else is largely unrelated to the punishment in my opinion its just cathartic. She couldve done far far worse to him than a quick execution, id have probably ripped out his nails and teeth and then killed him with a power washer via the worst enema.
What if the house fire she set caused other houses to catch on fire and kill the families living there?
There’s an argument for her going to jail for arson if anything.
Thats actually valid, I was simply pointing out that its just not adding to the cruel and unusual punishment element.
You don’t believe the state destroying all of someones possessions after conviction then death doesn’t add to cruel and unusual punishment?
Mutilating a corpse is also grounds for worse punishment.
However she chose burning down the house to hide the evidence no matter how much sympathy we have for the victim, it’s hard to get past that she was free, she showed premeditation, she drove a considerable distance to find him, she murdered him, and she attempted to hide evidence.
FOR FUCKS SAKE CHILDREN. 100% OF THE TIME YOU TRAVEL TO ANOTHER TOWN WITH A GUN, SHOOT SOMEONE TWICE IN THE HEAD KILLING THEM, THEN BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN AND FLEE YOU WILL 100% FACE JAILTIME. 11 YEARS TO COMMIT PREMEDITATED MURDER IS A VERY FUCKIN FAVORABLE DEAL AND SHE WOULD BE RETARDED NOT TO ACCEPT. Fuck me the amount of people in here saying lies that she killed him to escape or that she deserves a fuckin pardon is absolutely retarded. Yeah dude she killed 100% deserved it but so does her receiving 11 years as the consequence.
What if you shoot someone seven times in a courtroom?
I mean I guess lol usually people use examples from the country in question or atleast examples from more recent cases than 50 years ago. I also did not expect that the example would also show that the act of vigilante justice from Germany 50 yeas ago still was convicted and sentenced to 6 years and patrolled in 3. It’s a little shorter than the 10 or 11 years from the posted article but unless she kills again in prison, she’ll be out before serving 10. I personally know a shitbag who was convicted of dwi manslaughter for killing another driver between 5-12 years ago about and he was sentenced to 6 and released without fuckin parole after only 3 years for good behavior.
Everything that happened to this woman is fuckin horrible and as long as the person she killed was undoubtedly the person responsible, then noone is arguing he didn’t deserve to die. However the other people here saying this is bullshit and that if she was white she’d be Scott free is absolutely marginalizing the hell this woman went thru and the sacrifice she KNEW she would face as the cost of taking justice in her own hands. It is so fucking commendable and respectable to do what she did but the 10 years was inevitable and is par for the course for this type of conviction in the US justice dept.
Oh I never listed precedence because you never asked for it. She was just an example of a similar sitiation where people were indeed sympathetic.
We can start here, a historical case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Hughes
To preface, I am not defending the police or the piece of shit abuser. This was handled extraordinarily horrendously. Police even knew about the guy’s crimes and let him off without a slap on the wrist.
The basis of my thoughts comes from this paragraph in the article:
Police said that Kizer travelled from Milwaukee to Volar’s home in Kenosha in June 2018 armed with a gun. She shot him twice in the head, set his house on fire and took his car.
I don’t know any info beyond what the article gives, but it sounds like at that point she wasn’t being held captive and murdered to get away from her abuser. She actively plotted and had the freedom to travel and kill him. Unless there’s something I’m missing, I don’t think I could consider this as actively being self defense.
If it was a movie she would be the protagonist at least
There’s a whole season of Dexter with basically this premise
No but it was deserved justice for a crime that was going unpunished
Do we really want vigilantism though? Because that’s where this leads.
Maybe the police should do their job for a change.
Which is true, and also doesn’t address the point. (Also, obligatory ACAB.)
The problem with vigilantism is that the vigilante both decides whether an offense has been committed, and what the punishment should be for that offense. If I’ve been hit repeatedly by people speeding in my neighborhood, and cops aren’t giving the speeders tickets, no one in their right mind is going to say that I should start shooting at people driving in my neighborhood. (Or, I would hope no one in their right mind would say that.)
Downvoted just f the ACAB. Who said it’s obligatory? Why? That one phrase that reeks of generalization, civilized society has adopted it now? If this is not what it’s supposed to mean, I am open to explanations.
The point is that the system of policing that we have now is corrupt, and doesn’t protect or help victims. We see this quite often with sexual assault, where cops flatly refuse to investigate; rape kits remain untested for decades. The “good” police officers that try to affect change from within the system end up empowering the system, or get thrown out.
So if the current system is corrupt, what are the chances for a vigilante system? Somehow less corrupt? And based on what, the goodness of those who are willing to be vigilantes? Sounds like Police v2 minus any shred of accountability or system to handle abuse cases.
Not defending the cops here but the guy was arrested. The justice system set him free again.
Fair enough, the courts didn’t do thier job. The courts and the police work for us. If they fail us, we have to take over. That should be the defense.
Just a thought: what happens when that “we” is people who - say - think the courts and the police are not doing their job in sending home all “these illegal immigrants” or something like that?
deleted by creator
In this case? Absolutely yes.
Are you willing to universalize that though? Are you willing to allow all people that believe that they have been treated unjustly to take justice into their own hands?
Absolutely not.
That’s your risk though. You let this person administer their own justice, why shouldn’t someone else?
Where, exactly, is the line? How do you keep that slope from getting covered with oil and grease?
I mean you talk like it isn’t already a vigilante based system.
Everything you are arguing is already happening. Except the vigilantes are state sanctioned.
Cops pick and choose what laws to both follow AND enforce all the time. And the judges protect them.
The dowvotes on this one worry me.
Yeah the police don’t work so your solution is to go be even worse police? At this point, no justice at all might be better rofl.
That poor girl, this world is so disgustingly unfair.
Now with that said, it is not your place to obtain whatever you may think is “justice”. We have no need or want for vigilantism, all that creates is more opportunities for mistakes to happen and innocents hurt.
Now with that said, it is not your place to obtain whatever you may think is “justice”. We have no need or want for vigilantism, all that creates is more opportunities for mistakes to happen and innocents hurt.
Yes it is your place. If the law doesn’t account for that and unjustly puts you behind bars, the problem is with the law.
This case is an easy one. The problem is folks seeking justice for slights that aren’t so heinous and the whole drawing the line thing.
I’m totally on board with her killing the dude, if I was on the jury I’d have ignored the charge from the judge 100%. There should be a “what you did is illegal and you are guilty, but no jail for you” kinda deal.
That’s jury nullification. And every district does it’s best to make sure juries never hear about it. Some have even outlawed it. But it’s a natural consequence of the jury system. If you can’t nullify the charges as a jury then you aren’t a jury, you’re a rubber stamp.
It’s a jury’s job to find a defendant guilty or not guilty of a given charge.
When a jury starts considering whether they feel a charge is fair, they’re pretty much just making up the law. At that point you don’t need a court and a jury you could just have a bunch of people deciding the defendants fate based on the vibe.
When you say they “don’t want jurors to know”, they simply want jurors who understand their role in finding a defendant guilty or not guilty. Thinking that nullification is a possible outcome is tantamount to a refusal to fulfil the role of a juror.
That is them finding not guilty. It’s called nullification because the jury instructions are usually something stupid like, “if you believe he did the act you must vote guilty.”
Which just isn’t true. The entire purpose of juries is to avoid miscarriage of justice by law. Otherwise you can just outlaw a skin color and juries are forced to rubber stamp that.
It just doesn’t hold up in practice or theory.
The entire purpose of juries is to avoid miscarriage of justice by law.
This is patently false. Juries have a very clear role, to consider the charges against a defendant and weigh the evidence supporting those charges and conclude whether the charges are likely to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.
There is no step whereby jurors must consider the likely penalties arising from the charges and whether or not those penalties seem fair given the context - that is very clearly the role of a judge.
Otherwise you can just outlaw a skin color and juries are forced to rubber stamp that.
Correct. There’s a democratic process for creating laws. If a government creates a law making having a given skin color a criminal act, then the role of a jury in such a case would be to find the defendant guilty. In this absurd hypothetical example, there are a myriad of better options to avoid this eventuality, such as not electing a government that would create such a law.
So you’re down for authoritarian democracy. Good to know. Of course you’d want a rubber stamp jury. But our founders instituted juries the way they did specifically because parliament passed and enforced unjust laws. To say they must convict on the most absurd of laws flies in the face of our entire history.
That’s not vigilantism. That’s escape. We’re locking this woman up for escaping her situation.
She’d already escaped. She was free of him. Then she got a gun, hunted him down, and shot him.
This is why she couldn’t claim self defense or a battered woman defense - she’d already escaped.
So glad you’re just taking the prosecution’s word as fact. Her defense was that she was literally in the process of being raped.
Did you read the article? It sounds like she had escaped. Maybe her persecutor had psychological control over her but not physical, that makes it vigilantism.
The facts of the case are barely present in the public sphere because she was denied her self defense argument in court. It’s entirely possible Volar had tracked down escaped women before and entirely possible she was in the process of escaping others working with him. Literally the only thing the prosecution said is that she traveled between cities.
And if this was vigilantism, why hasn’t she gotten the same treatment as Kyle Rittenhouse? It’s the same state but when she travels with a gun, gets in a fight and ends it she’s not allowed the self defence argument he had?
Obviously Chrystul is aware of all the facts and she decided that her actions didn’t meet the legal definition of self defence.
They literally denied her the defense.
So Chrystul is aware of all the facts and understands that her actions didn’t meet the legal definition of self defence ?
According to the system. That did give that defence to the guy who traveled to a protest to shoot people.
I need that F to doubt button.
gets in a fight
No fight here.
Not according to her attorneys.
Good kill. Still murder. She is not a threat to society though…so…11years hardly-enforced house arrest might be more fitting.
eh, I’d call it some gene pool chlorination.
Wait like… Him being removed from the pool or her?
Some people are genetically flawed and should be killed? I think I heard that somewhere before…
This lady needs to be pardoned or it’s the origin story for a villain who has an understandable grudge against the justice system.
Sorry, America governors only pardon you when its the pedophile doing the murdering.
Let killer cops go free, jail the victims of the failed justice system.
The cruelty seems to be the point.
This is a failure on her attorney to make a good case. There is no way a normal person votes to convict here. There has to be something we’re missing as to why they agreed to a guilty charge.
She actively plotted and traveled to get revenge and clearly didn’t act in self defense. While it’s easy to be sympathetic to her story, her guilt seems difficult to deny.
This:
Police said that Kizer travelled from Milwaukee to Volar’s home in Kenosha in June 2018 armed with a gun. She shot him twice in the head, set his house on fire and took his car.
Whatever we think about this guy, it still was a murder.
Ehhh it was a nice murder.
She accepted a plea deal. No trial no jury.
Trials are expensive and she clearly didn’t have money to spend in her own defense.
Sounds like it was a reasonably high profile case, and some kind of test case. I suspect she could’ve secured a great pro-bono lawyer.
Its not.a test case though, people have murdered those that wronged them before, it’s still.murder.
“Four months before Volar died, police arrested him on charges of sexual assault but released him the same day.”
Yeah maybe we are not told about how corrupt police is.
Alright kids.
There’s this wonderful thing called “Jury Nullification”
That means if 1 juror refuses to convict then there is no conviction.
It is your privilege, right, and I daresay even duty to use this helpful tool when you deem it necessary. If you’re called for Jury Duty on a case. Let’s say non violent drug case. I don’t believe nonviolent drug offenses should be against the law at all except in the case of something really bad like Fentanyl. So if I was called I would refuse to convict if the defendant was there for let’s say Mary Jane.
But don’t ever say those words. Don’t allude to it. Don’t discuss it with your fellow jurors. Don’t Google it after you’ve been called. It’s your secret. But it’s a secret everyone should know if you get my meaning.
Now go forth and make the world a better place.
I just posted this somewhere else but it belongs here…
It’s a jury’s job to find a defendant guilty or not guilty of a given charge.
When a jury starts considering whether they feel a charge is fair, they’re pretty much just making up the law. At that point you don’t need a court and a jury you could just have a bunch of people deciding the defendants fate based on the vibe.
When you say they “don’t want jurors to know”, they simply want jurors who understand their role in finding a defendant guilty or not guilty. Thinking that nullification is a possible outcome is tantamount to a refusal to fulfil the role of a juror.
Tell that to those abolitionists who were not convicted of harboring fugitive slaves because of jury nullification.
Sometimes laws aren’t just. And as citizens we have a right to stand up to unjust laws.
as citizens we have a right to stand up to unjust laws.
Correct, but that is not the function of a jury.
Why do we have a jury to decide if a defendant is guilty or not guilty when a judge is trained to do the same thing? Why do we allow a jury at all? I think there’s more to the function of the jury than just guilty/not guilty or else they would be replaced with a different system.
I’m getting weary of repeating myself.
It is very clearly not the role of a judge to decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They are not “trained” to do that. That is the role of the jury. Hence the phrase “you have been found guilty by a jury of your peers”.
You have a jury to balance the power of the judge, such that a judge can not simply dole out “justice”.
Defendants can elect to have a jury trial. If they don’t have a jury trial, who finds them guilty or not guilty? Is it the judge? If it’s the judge, why do we allow jury trials to occur when every trial could be determined by a justice of the peace?
What is “training” if not education in the laws and legal system? Are judges not educated in law school before becoming lawyers and then justices? Is this irl experience not also considered training?
Honestly I’m not really sure what you’re talking about.
The role of a judge and the role of a jury is a fundamental characteristic of a court. You seem to be mixing them up?
Lemmy now supports not only the death penalty but death penalty without a trial.
