Another murder case going on in Kenosha: Chrystul Kizer

[Spider-Dan]

So here's 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. 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.

[Dolphster]

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.  

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

[Dolphster]

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. 

[ArtieChokePhin]

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.

[Dolphster]

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. 

[Sunstroke]

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

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.

[ArtieChokePhin]

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. 

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.

[pondwater]

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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. 

[pondwater]

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.

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. 

[Dolphster]

Rape and sexual assault is not taken seriously and defending yourself against rape is not nearly considered as justifiable as defending random private property. 

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."

[Spider-Dan]

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?

[pondwater]

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.