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.
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.
"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?
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.
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 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.
The same man, mind you, whose solicitation of underage "prostitutes" you casually dismiss with some sort of both sides made mistakes equivocation.
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.....
Who is asking that she be set free without a trial?
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 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).
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.
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.
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?
And this very thread makes it crystal clear why.
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.
Author