A Milwaukee woman has been jailed for 11 years for killing the man that prosecutors said had sex trafficked her as a teenager.

The sentence, issued on Monday, ends a six-year legal battle for Chrystul Kizer, now 24, who had argued she should be immune from prosecution.

Kizer was charged with reckless homicide for shooting Randall Volar, 34, in 2018 when she was 17. She accepted a plea deal earlier this year to avoid a life sentence.

Volar had been filming his sexual abuse of Kizer for more than a year before he was killed.

Kizer said she met Volar when she was 16, and that the man sexually assaulted her while giving her cash and gifts. She said he also made money by selling her to other men for sex.

  • 𝔻𝕒𝕧𝕖@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    287
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    I am outraged, a plea deal to avoid life imprisonment? What the fuck did I just read?!

    This guy trafficked, raped and tortured her, and other underage women. Police did jack shit. And she was supposed to be watching him just walk away? Grotesque.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      215
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Any jailtime is ridiculous. She’s been in prison for 8 years. The judge had a chance to try and rebuild her life, but they gave her punishment for getting trapped in a bad situation. What’s the issue, does the judge think she’s going to go out and start shooting other rapists and traffickers?

      • RestlessNotions@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        115
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        If this was how my cards were dealt, I would likely make it my life’s mission.

        This country certainly goes all in for cruel and unusual punishment.

        • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          30
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well the very act of shooting someone in the head twice, burning their home down, and stealing their car is cruel and unusual punishment.

          Despite what everyone in the comments seems to think you’re not legally protected from going John Wick on someone regardless of how much they’ve wronged you or if the system failed you.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            They were dead when they got shot in the head, everything else is largely unrelated to the punishment in my opinion its just cathartic. She couldve done far far worse to him than a quick execution, id have probably ripped out his nails and teeth and then killed him with a power washer via the worst enema.

            • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              4 months ago

              What if the house fire she set caused other houses to catch on fire and kill the families living there?

              There’s an argument for her going to jail for arson if anything.

                • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  You don’t believe the state destroying all of someones possessions after conviction then death doesn’t add to cruel and unusual punishment?

                  • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    The difference here is the actions of a state versus the actions of an individual. When its the actions of an individual it should be a case by case IMO burning shit is kinda instinctive. But for the state it is a seperate case altogether since instinct shouldnt factor in. Also this would better be covered by arson and wrongful destruction of property.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              4 months ago

              Mutilating a corpse is also grounds for worse punishment.

              However she chose burning down the house to hide the evidence no matter how much sympathy we have for the victim, it’s hard to get past that she was free, she showed premeditation, she drove a considerable distance to find him, she murdered him, and she attempted to hide evidence.

              • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                4 months ago

                What part of not cruel and unusual punishment since ya cant punish the dead are ya not getting. Im only addressing that element not the rest of the shit, improper handling of a corpse, grand theft auto, and arson are their own charges.

          • Kalysta@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            The guy raped several children and sex trafficked them.

            I’m of the opinion this girl did the world a favor. There is no rehabbing sex pests

      • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

        What’s the issue, does the judge think she’s going to go out and start shooting other rapists and traffickers?

        The issue is that the patriarchy must uphold rape culture, and that the absence of justice for rape survivors is a feature of that, not a bug, and the courts can’t have that power taken away from them.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Could it be the judge more cares about being the one to impose sentences and doesn’t like others doing it?

          Like, it’s easy to see this same decision happening even in a non-patriarchal context - at least for me.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is a good point. Prison is supposed to be rehabilitation. But how can you rehabilitate someone who has run out of targets. Plus if she has been in 8 years as you say. Time served. I am guessing she had a public defender who gave her bad advice.

      • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Wouldn’t the judge then be in the line of fire, technically, as well as those that own him?

      • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Someone who understands she was free from the person who was trafficking her and she sought them out and killed them. Yeah it’s glorious justice on the big screen but in the actual legal system this is vigilante justice.

        In my state under the Castle Act or whatever it’s called, someone can break into your house, threaten you and your family’s life but until you prove your ability to flee was prevented physically you cannot fire a weapon for protection regardless of intent to scare, injure or kill.

        That is the framework used by our legal system to prosecute cases of self defense. You as a citizen cannot take the law into your own hands like the defendant did. No matter how justified it may seem.

      • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        4 months ago

        Most 17 year olds charge with murder, or some variation of killing someone, aren’t charged as minors. That’s not taking a position on this specific case, it’s just a fact.

        • venusaur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          4 months ago

          They need to re-evaluate that especially in cases where somebody has been robbed of years of development like this one

          • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Totally agree. Mitigating circumstances, absolutely. Self defense, nope. There should be some punishment. What that should be, I do not know.