this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
265 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5061 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
265
Chrystul Kizer Got 11 Years in Prison for Killing Her Abuser. This Is Justice? (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived at https://ghostarchive.org/archive/A5eQ9

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 63 points 2 months ago (8 children)

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.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 53 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it's sketchy as hell they let him go when they busted him with home made kiddie porn.

The fuck!?!

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ummm yea this girl deserves a pay day for doing their job for them not punishment.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Her morally good action was premeditated? Unthinkable!

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago

If you want a society where premeditated extralegal violence is "good", you can always go to Pakistan. That's exactly what people who perform "honor killings" believe.

The developed world got rid of that when duels went out of fashion. The problem with killing someone to solve a problem is that it creates more problems. The person who died has friends, family, children, etc. who will not think your actions are justified. They will come for you and your family.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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…

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's the thing though, I dont't think it had failed her. Not only was it in the process of dispensing justice, but it wasn't even doing it at her request since it seems she never reported him. The justice system isn't failing when it's being ignored by the victim.

We are entitled to justice but that doesn't entail killing folks on a whim when it feels justified. We have systems in place and we need to at least give them a chance before taking matters into our own hands.

I understand your point that not all forms of vigilantism are bad. For instance, I applaud the ordinary citizens that were fighting against the cartels in mexico a while back. I just think in this case it wasn't justified.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We are entitled to justice but that doesn't entail killing folks on a whim

I appreciate the conversation. I doubt we disagree on the fundamentals. However, I have to push back against this characterization. There was nothing whimsical about her decision or this guy’s culpability.

It’s also important not to conflate our ability to know something definitively (our epistemic confidence) with the truth.

If what she claims about this guy is true, then she is morally justified. If it’s not true, then she isn’t. Our uncertainty about the matter is a separate issue and regrettably not the subject of this litigation.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 3 points 2 months ago

Ok, except that. Don’t burn down the neighborhood.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

When the law and authorities fail to give you Justice, you go ahead and get it yourself. Just don't get caught.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

People don't get let go with child porn. That's a hard claim to swallow.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

...what?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

She put herself in a position where she needed to use it if that's what happened. Going to the police or literally not going to his house and doing anything else would have offered her the same protection.

Guns are suppose to be a last resort, she used it as her first.

On top off that she burned down the house most likely to hide evidence and then lied about her part in the murder.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 45 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] xploit@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] gearheart@lemm.ee 18 points 2 months ago

I agree. If she would have a badge and uniform they would have simply suspended her with pay. She would take a few weeks vacation and carry on with her life like nothing.

I'm being serious...

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Is that true? The person she killed was an actual criminal and not an autistic child or guy armed with a sandwich.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The premeditation is unfortunately what got her. Now, if she accidentally bumped into him while driving a car, however...

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 5 points 2 months ago

She did the right thing with forethought and premeditation? How dare she!

[–] Rivalarrival 2 points 2 months ago

What got her is her own "guilty" plea. This case never went to trial.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lanusensei87@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

I think because they failed her, her actions are justified.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 24 points 2 months ago

As usual, when the title asks a question, the answer is no.

[–] nimomycelium@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

She ought to be given a medal 🏅

load more comments
view more: next ›