Archived at https://ghostarchive.org/archive/A5eQ9
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The premeditation is unfortunately what got her. Now, if she accidentally bumped into him while driving a car, however…
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.
