The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

So here's (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/06/22/chrystul-kizer-released-bail-raised-sex-trafficking-murder-case/3208119001/) an interesting contrast from the last big case in that area:

After nearly two years of incarceration in the Kenosha County Jail, child trafficking survivor Chrystul Kizer was released Monday after community activists raised her $400,000 bail.

The case of Kizer, who shot and killed her suspected trafficker after a year of sexual abuse and violence, has drawn international attention from advocates who say she is a victim acting in self-defense and have campaigned for charges to be dropped. [...]

When Kizer was 16, she posted an ad on a website later seized by the FBI as a forum for prostitution. Kizer said she posted the advertisement to get money for school supplies and snacks. She didn't know who would respond since she was new to the site and had to have another girl show her how to use it.

Kenosha resident Randall P. Volar III was the first to contact Kizer. At the time they met, Volar was already under investigation by the Kenosha Police Department for sexual conduct with underage girls as young as 12.

He was 33.

From Milwaukee to Kenosha, Volar physically and sexually abused Kizer over a period of months.

Police found evidence that he was abusing multiple underage Black girls. (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2019/12/18/sex-trafficking-girl-he-having-sex-charged-his-death/2677259001/) In February 2018, he was arrested and charged, and released without bail.

In June 2018, when Kizer was 17, she shot and killed Volar, set his Kenosha house on fire and fled in his BMW. Her bail was originally set at $1 million. [...]

No trial date for Kizer has been set. The case is scheduled for a status conference in September. Graveley said a plea offer to reduce charges from first-degree international [sic] homicide to felony murder is on the table. [...]

In the reduced charge of felony murder, Kizer would be pleading to killing Volar in the course of a robbery. It would not carry the mandatory life sentence that goes with first-degree intentional homicide but still has the potential for decades in prison.

---

Going to be interesting to see what happens on this one if she doesn't take the plea deal for armed robbery and felony murder (and if she doesn't, she has more faith in the Wisconsin courts than I would).

Suffice it to say that I have little confidence that our woke justice system is going to let a black woman just get away with killing a white man in "self-defense," even if that guy was trafficking children for sex.

From an emotions standpoint, I have no problem with what she did.  Legally.....it depends on all of the facts.  Going SOLELY on what Dan put in his post since this is the first I've heard of this case, I'd say she is probably in a lot of trouble so when she gets sentenced for whatever she ends up being found guilty of that the sentencing takes into consideration what she went through and is lenient.  I don't have a problem with the two years of incarceration awaiting bail because that is just the rules.  Sentencing takes a lot more things into consideration than bail does.  Bail just looks at the severity of the charges, flight risk, etc.  And honestly, $400K is a pretty low bail amount considering the severity of the charges. Typically, it is not uncommon for 1st degree murder charges to carry a bail of around $1M which is apparently what the original bail amount was.  So to lower it from $1M to $400K seems to me that the court DID in fact take the fact that she was victimized into account.   From an emotional standpoint, I completely understand what she did.  But she is going to have a heavy lift if she is hoping that self defense is going to fly.  The specifics of the killing itself are very different from that dumbass Rittenhouse so I don't know that an apples to apples comparison can be made.  The fact that she set his house on fire and stole his car after shooting him kind of ups the ante a good bit.  

Again, I'm basing my comments solely on what Dan provided.  But with the very limited information I'm working with, my first thought is that her best route would be accepting a plea deal and hoping that the court takes her age and the circumstances into consideration and being as lenient as possible in sentencing.

I appreciate that Dan is always pretty good about providing pertinent links in his posts, I just don't have time today to research any of them and educate myself on the case.  

Dolphster, please explain the justification for the difference in bail between Kizar and Volar.  Child trafficking is a serious charge.  I doubt Kizar is much of a risk to commit a second murder while out, unless she is once again raped.  Volar on the other hand was a continuing threat.  Only explanation seems to be one was a white suspect with black victims and the other a black suspect with a white victim. 

To  echo the defense of Rittenhouse, she only acted because the police were standing by while crime was being committed.  Except in her case it was to protect herself, not some random car dealership.

I can't justify the difference in bail between Kizar and Volar because I never addressed the bail difference at all.  So I'm a little confused as to why you would think that I would explain it.  All I said was that $400K bail is pretty low for the litany of charges she is facing. I wasn't saying I disagreed with the $400K bail, I'm just saying that historically, when the list of charges is that substantial, bail is often (but not always) higher.   I completely agree with you that she isn't likely to commit a second murder.  But that doesn't have anything to do with what I said either.  Hell, I'm not the one who set the bail.  Ask the judge why it was $400K, not me.  LOL   In many states there is almost a mathematical formula for setting bail that the judges typically use for setting bail.  My understanding is that in Wisconsin, there is no set formula for setting bail and that the judge has essentially carte blanche to determine bail at arraignment.  I started off my post by stating that I have no problem with what she did from an emotional point of view.  All I was doing in my post was talking about how the law and bail works.  I'm sure as hell not shedding any tears for Volar.

Not everything in the world is about race.  I'm certainly not in Rittenhouse's corner by any means.  But there are huge legal differences surrounding the circumstances of what he did and what the young lady did.  I hope she if found not guilty of all charges, but I doubt that is going to happen.  But it certainly isn't racist that those charges were filed against her.  I hope that the circumstances surrounding what she did will lead to as little punishment as possible.  But she did do those things and has to stand trial for them.  The justice system can't just say "screw it, we aren't going to charge her with anything because the guy deserved what happened to him".   Sometimes I wish the system did work that way.  But it can't or else the system would be even worse than it already is. 

As a conservative, I believe in doing what is right and not necessarily what is legal.   This case should've been nuked by a grand jury.

Artie, from an emotional standpoint I'm right there with you.  But I'm sure you can appreciate what a 3rd world country or sharia law type of country this would be if criminal court cases were decided by what is "right" rather than by what the law says.  The most obvious problem is determining what is "right".   What is "right" to you and I can be absolutely "wrong" to other people. Look at countries where the government picks people up and kills them for no other reason than they disagreed with them.  If a far left fascist leadership is elected to this country and they are allowed to do what is "right" in their minds as opposed to abiding with long established law, then as a conservative, you could be picked up and be killed or imprisoned for life just because your version of "right" doesn't mesh with theirs.  Look at Cuba.  Happens all the time there with political prisoners.   Codified law and due process is what separates the US from anarchy.  Part of what I pledged to defend in the military and in my law enforcement career is to uphold the laws of this country.  I disagree with some laws and I disagree with what goes on in court all the time.  But law shouldn't be based on my opinion or your opinion or anyone else's opinion.  I hope this girl gets the most lenient punishment possible.  But the courts can't just waive a homicide trial because the person deserved to be killed in our opinions.  A grand jury can't just arbitrarily "nuke" a case because the victim was a scumbag who deserved to die. 

As a conservative or a liberal, I believe in doing what I feel is right and not necessarily what is legal.

...just wanted to expand that for reality's sake. ;)

This is not just about the victim being a scumbag who deserved to die.  This is about the victim holding his killer against her will.  If that is the case, she has the right to insurrection, which is up to and including removing him from the face of this earth.

What were the exact circumstances surrounding her killing him. He was arrested in February and she shot him in June. Why were they in such close proximity? Were they in some kind of twisted consensual relationship that went bad? Did she seek him out and murder him? Did he seek here out and attack her? This case and the Rittenhouse case have nothing to do with each other. The actual facts matter in each individual case.

There is no doubt he was a bad man but something is off about this story. She targeted this man. She is trying to sound innocent with the story about wanting money for "school supplies and snacks. " She was posting on a prostitute website and went back to this abuser after his arrest.

I will agree not every aspect of why this case is treated differently is attributable to racism.  Much of it is due to sexism.  Rape and sexual assault is not taken seriously and defending yourself against rape is not nearly considered as justifiable as defending random private property. 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Did you find any facts about how it actually went down after he was released on bail?

There is no reason whatsoever for her to be near her alleged "abuser" while he is awaiting trial. She either targeted and murdered him, in which case she's probably guilty. Or he targeted her and attacked her, in which case it's self defense. 

I definitely agree with this.  The "she was asking for it" defense is shockingly still used with some amount of frequency.  That just blows my mind.  Back when I worked for the City of Miami, I even saw Defense attorneys hit the female victim with "Your goal should have been to get away.  By fighting him you assaulted him."

In this thread, we are seeing "She should have left before being abused more" given as reason why she is guilty of murder.

Why don't these sexual trafficking victims... just LEAVE their abusers?

Well then post some facts of the case. He was arrested and released in February of 2018. She killed him 4 months later in June of 2018. That means either she tracked him down OR he tracked her down AFTER he was arrested. That is an important bit of information that is conveniently left out of the story.

It's not like if there's a moment where she's not physically chained to a wall, she's somehow choosing to stay.  If you are trafficking a person (and particularly, a CHILD) against their will, you can just tell them "Don't leave this house or I will beat the shit out of you" and that will do a pretty good job of keeping them in place even if you're arrested.

But as requested, here are some more details (https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/months-before-he-was-killed-a-call-from-a-frightened-teenager-led-police-to-randall/article_96bb225c-c29b-5e5f-8d32-8f160ff19a6a.html):

According to Washington Post, those documents show that the police investigation began on Feb. 12, 2018, when a 15-year-old girl called 911 and reported a man had given her drugs and was going to kill her.

Police found the girl wandering in the area near Volar's home wearing only a bra and an unzipped jacket. She appeared to be drugged and told police she had taken LSD.

According to the Washington Post, the police reports state that the 15-year-old told investigators she had met Volar when he responded to an advertisement on the Backpage website about a year before, and that he had been having sex with her since she was 14.

She said she was reluctant to get Volar in trouble, calling him her "friend" but told police he was having sex with other young girls and filming it. She told police the first names of three other underage girls Volar had been having sex with, including the name Chrystul.

That article also covers Volar's arrest:

During that trafficking investigation, Volar was taken into custody on Feb. 22 pending charges of second-degree sexual assault of a child, child enticement-prostitution and use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime.

His mug shot was taken; he was fingerprinted, and then released pending a summons and complaint as the investigation continued.

He was killed before any charges were filed.

In the 4 months between the time he was released in February and when he was killed in June. Did she go to his house? How did she get there? If so, why? Or did he go kidnap her and chain her to the wall even after being arrested? The exact timeline that happened AFTER he was arrested matters.

But do those things actually matter?

When considering that this man is accused of trafficking multiple underage girls for sex, is your concern that these children may have had an opportunity to flee and didn't take it?
That if they may have "voluntarily" returned to the adult man who was abusing them, his death is their fault?

What argument are you making, here?  Please lay it out for me.

Yes actually those things matter. Here in the United States a person is innocent until proven guilty. She's not allowed to hunt him down, kill him, set him on fire, rob him, joyride in his car, and brag about it on social media. Anyhow, I found the info (https://www.fox6now.com/news/she-pulled-the-trigger-chrystul-kizer-charged-in-death-of-kenosha-man-found-shot-in-burning-home) I was looking for. This is nothing but another of your race baiting threads.


So it seems that she voluntarily took an Uber to a different community to visit her alleged abuser, killed him, lit him on fire, robbed him, and bragged about it on social media. 3 days later posting a live video on Facebook where she displayed a handgun and ammo.

Also, if you want to compare this to the Rittenhouse trial. He turned himself in, had a $2 million bail set, and stood trial. Now it's her turn.

pondwater, you should let some of the QAnon crazies know that all their outrage about child sex trafficking might be unwarranted.  I mean, has anyone asked if these children took an Uber to the people who were trafficking them?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Even in the case of a 33-year-old man with allegations of multiple underage girls at his home (and a 15-year-old found outside by the police wearing only a bra and a jacket), when Kizer claims self-defense, it's Volar that gets the presumption of innocence.  But in the case of, say, George Zimmerman, when he claims self-defense, Trayvon Martin is presumed guilty.

No matter the scenario, the interpretation must always be that black lives are inconsequential and they deserve what's coming to them (or, in the case of Rittenhouse, anyone protesting on behalf of black lives).  Today, it's someone defending a 33-year-old man having sex with multiple underage girls and insisting that the child that killed him was the real villain, but I don't even know that that's the worst case we've seen on this board.  I mean, when a black man was sitting peacefully in his apartment and a white police officer shot him dead for no reason, we had someone on this board arguing that if she didn't MEAN to kill him when she intentionally shot him, she shouldn't be convicted of murder.

I must say, though: it's pretty rich for you to accuse me of posting "race baiting threads" after you started the Rittenhouse thread.

So you're saying that after he was arrested for allegedly abusing her, that it's ok for her to travel to his house, kill him, set him on fire, and rob him?

Or just maybe an admitted prostitute went back for more money after he was arrested for abusing her and when he wouldn't give it to her, she took it. I don't know about you, but if someone is doing bad shit to me, I don't tend to seek them out, travel to them, and kill them. I want as far away from them as possible.

My original post about Rittenhouse had no mention of anything racial. Hell, the whole case had nothing to do with race. There were no other races involved except the honkeys. You're totally off base on this one and your racism is on full display for everyone to see. The Aubrey case isn't the Rittenhouse case.

Children can now be "admitted prostitutes"?  Whatever it takes to arrive at the necessary goalposts!
Again, maybe you should let all those Q whackos know that they can call off the hounds.  Perhaps all the kids in the basement of Comet Ping Pong Pizza took an Uber to get there!

A case about an armed vigilante traveling across state lines to protect property during a BLM protest and subsequently killing two people at said protest does not have "nothing to do with race."

This girl trafficed herself based on anything I read so far. She went on a prostitution site admittedly to make money. It doesn't excuse any of his behavior but she admits to being a prostitute by her own account. I haven't read up fully but she took part freely from what I've seen so far.

According to your own link, "When Kizer was 16, she posted an ad on a website later seized by the FBI as a forum for prostitution."

No idea WTF you're talking about.

There fixed it for ya.....

A case about a not too bright white minor, who was found to have broken no laws, while traveling to a place he had as much right to be as anyone else there, that was attacked by 3 white criminals, and subsequently defended himself from being beaten to death-----> has absolutely nothing to do with race.


Again, are you're saying that 4 months after he was arrested for allegedly abusing her. That it's ok for her to travel to his house, kill him, set him on fire, and rob him?  LMFAO...........

So if I understand the claims on this thread correctly, a child - who does not have the legal ability to consent to sex! - is responsible for her own "prostitution," while the adult man that pays her for sex (and/or otherwise participates in child sex trafficking) is a victim.

She was no angel!

Neither of them were angels. But are you saying that he deserved to be murdered over a misdemeanor?

Wisconsin - 948.09 Sexual intercourse with a child age 16 or older. Whoever has sexual intercourse with a child who is not the defendant's spouse and who has attained the age of 16 years is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Also, are you saying she isn't responsible for traveling to someone's house, killing them, setting them on fire, and robbing them? You'll also have to reconcile the fact that she admitted to lying, destroying evidence, and trying to cover up her crime. In addition to her social media posts bragging about it. Innocent people don't try to "cover their tracks" because there are no tracks to cover.

You still haven't addressed WHY she went to his house that she subsequently burned to the ground. Self defense also doesn't include stealing a computer, a car, and cash?

I'm pretty sure raping children is not a "misdemeanor" under Wisconsin law.  Kizer's claim is that that he sexually assaulted her and she killed him in self-defense.

Again, it's amazing how you casually dismiss the actions of someone most people would refer to as a "child predator."  But she was probably asking for it so all bets are off!  I'm sure that you are equally skeptical in other cases of alleged child sex trafficking, with deeply held concerns over why the young girl invited a grown man to come pick them up, right?

But please, tell me more about Joseph Rosenbaum, Wisconsin pedophile, and why he deserved to die.  I guess having sex with kids means you're a scumbag who got what was coming to you if Kyle Rittenhouse is shooting you, but not if it's one of the kids you're paying for sex!

A person can be guilty of one thing and a victim of another, it isn't either or.

I posted the relevant statute, look it up if you wish. As far as I can tell, in Wisconsin, sexual intercourse with a child 16 year or older is a misdemeanor. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, in most states the age of consent is 16.

He didn't pick her up, she traveled to his home. That is a relevant fact. Quit beating around the bush and fucking tell us all why she went to his house after he had already abused her and been arrested for it? There is absolutely no reason for her to choose to travel to the house of her abuser months later.

If I beat the shit out of you at the bar and you have me arrested. Then 4 months later you travel to my house, kill me, set me on fire, and rob me. What the fuck you think is going to happen?


Was Rosenbaum a convicted pedophile? Was Volar a convicted pedophile? I have no idea either way. However, I do know that being convicted of something is not the same as being accused of something. Go ask Rittenhouse, he'll tell ya the difference LMFAO.....

No, he deserved to die because he was attacking and assaulting someone and that's what the jury decided. You seem to want to skip the judicial process that Rittenhouse just completed and just set Kizer free without a trial just because she's black. Nope, she can go to trial just like Rittenhouse, McMichael, Chauvin, Guyger, and Zimmerman. Your racism is off the chain, go see a professional for your issues.

You are talking about consensual sex, which is not what Kizer claimed happened the day she shot Volar.
Non-consensual sexual assault is a felony in every state, no matter the age of the victim.

"Why did a supposed victim of domestic violence go back to her boyfriend after she claimed he hit her?"

Do you have the slightest clue how abuse works?

Rosenbaum was never convicted of assault on Rittenhouse, yet you do not afford him the same presumption of innocence that you give a 33-year-old man with a half-naked drugged teenager outside of his house that alleges he tried to kill her.  The same man, mind you, whose solicitation of underage "prostitutes" you casually dismiss with some sort of both sides made mistakes equivocation.

Who is asking that she be set free without a trial?

I mean, it's not like she's George Zimmerman or Travis McMichael, who can freely admit to killing a person and have law enforcement give them a reassuring pat on the shoulder before sending them home (until public outcry forces the police to reluctantly arrest them).  Our justice system DEFINITELY doesn't work that way for black people, so you can put that whole "You think she shouldn't even have been charged!" nonsense out of your mind.  No one on this side is so delusional as to think that a person in Kizer's situation would not have to prove her innocence, even in a case as morally disturbing as this.

And this very thread makes it crystal clear why.

Every single time I read the news, I am reminded of why I like dogs better than people.  There are still plenty of good individual people, but this world is a f'ing cesspool. 

They are both the same since as you so kindly pointed out "a child - who does not have the legal ability to consent to sex". Which means that it's all non consensual because they can't legally consent. You're conflating the legal term consent with being a willing participant. So either she was a willing participant in being a prostitute or not. You can't have it both ways.

I have yet to read anything that says that Volar was her "boyfriend" or they had any emotional ties. As far as I'm concerned, she placed an advertisement as a prostitute. Which is basically trading sex for money or something of value. So it seems that while she couldn't legally consent to sex that she was a willing participant by offering sex.

The jury decided that Rosenbaum's actions rose to the threat level that justified lethal self defense. They could have easily decided that Rosenbaum wasn't a threat if that's what the evidence showed. 

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that the Kizer was the one placing online advertisements soliciting her services of prostitution to make money to buy herself some snacks. Maybe she wanted some Skittles & Iced Tea, LMFAO.....

Then what is your point? Are you disagreeing with a verdict that hasn't happened yet? Are you disagreeing with the charges? Are you just trying to argue and race bait? Because at this point you don't even hide your racist "angry black man" shtick.

I don't remember either of those two lying, destroying evidence, and trying to "cover their tracks". Because if you don't think you've done anything wrong, you don't need to do any of that. She did all that shit because she knew she fucked up and didn't want to face the consequences.

If the prosecution can't prove she's guilty of what she's charged with, then she'll walk. That's literally how it works. WTF are you even arguing about?

The only thing this thread proves is that your radical agenda doesn't care that all criminal cases have circumstances that aren't all the same and have their own set of facts. That's why they have the trial.

Just like in the NFL, everyone can say the Ravens will beat the Dolphins. But that's why they actually play the game, because at the end of the day your opinion is only your opinion and has no relevance to the actual outcome.

So I read up some on this case,although it was Wikipedia. He apparently responded as a john but the relationship changed where he was in the pimp role. If that's accurate I can see things playing differently than if he was just a john.

Why dogs are better than children (and I have both)

1.  A dog will always come when called.

2.  A dog will never talk back to you

3.  A dog will never complain about what you feed them

4.  A dog will always be loyal to you and love on you

5.  If a dog gets pregnant, you can sell their offspring.

I don't know if it changes it all that much.

If you're tired of someone touching you. You don't go kill them, you stay away from them and testify against them in court.

Then when you travel to a different town to visit someone you are "tired of touching you" with a gun, a police scanner, and cover your tracks after killing them, setting them on fire, and robbing them. We obviously don't know all the facts of the case and things could change. Additional evidence could totally exonerate her. However, with what I know about the case, it looks like she planned to kill and/or rob him before she went there. 

If the Rittenhouse trial proves anything it's that the prosecutors of Kenosha aren't afraid of overcharging "suspects" but the people of the jury actually enforce the law. If it is as Spider says she will walk. I honestly do not think race means as much as some would want us to believe.

CF you didn't get the memo from Spider? In 2021 there's an epidemic of honkys chasing down negros and executing them in the street like animals. He keeps brainwashing us with the liberal propaganda, might as well play along lol.....

I don't think you completely understand my point. It changes things significantly from her tracking down a john she was freely seeing to her tracking down a pimp which can be a complicated relationship.  It doesn't change the fact that she went to him after the arrest at all. It does change my understanding of why.

I'm a cat person

The problem with cats is that they claw up your furniture and they won't necessarily come when called (they come to you when THEY want to).   

The advantage with cats is you can get away for a long weekend without having to get someone to watch them.   Just fill their food and water bowls up to the brim and lay out a clean litterbox.

They are vey low maintenance that way, and when they want attention they'll seek it out. Then go hide and leave you alone when they've had enough. I always think that I want a dog, but then November to March happens and I'm like, no.