265
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
265 points (94.9% liked)
politics
19072 readers
5623 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is justice. Look at the facts on the case.
How does that boot taste?
Normally Im all ACAB fuck the system. But the evidence in the case and facts make this ruling just even if it seems unfair.
Her abuser was a piece of shit, no denying that. And while the world is probably a better place with him dead, the means by which it was accomplished was illegal.
If the court had done anything but find her guilty, it just sends a signal to any would be vigilantes that if justice system didn't give you an outcome you wanted quickly as you wanted, then it's okay to take justice into your own hands.
While I do hope she gets a pardon and those who didn't take her pleas seriously when she tried to report him become subject to thorough investigation and permanently removed from the criminal justice system, we absolutely can not go back to frontier justice of people killing each other because the local sheriff and deputies didn't want to or know how to deal with it.
We have similar cases where people were found not guilty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Hughes
Why was it okay then in that case but now for this black girl's case, it will suddenly erode society if -checks notes- pedophiles die
Nice strawman. Surely race was the only differing factors in these two cases, and it had nothing to do with with the fact that Kizer traveled 40 miles to shoot her abuser after escaping him months ago (that his convinction failing is the real injustice here) and took a plea-deal to avoid a life sentence for premeditated murder, where as Hughes lived with her abuser, was beaten the night of killing, called the cops, watcher her abuser talk the cops down, beat her again, starved her, raped her, threatened her and her children and burned her school books before she killed him and took her children to the police station to turn herself in.
But yes please insist these two cases are like for like.
I didn't say race was the only issue, but you'd have to be blindingly, overwhelmingly ignorant to think race doesn't play a part in sentencing.
The cases are alike in that both women were put through horrific situations that caused them to react violently. I think that's pretty similar.
Read your damn source. You posted it. It's obvious they are completely different.
It's like comparing apples to oranges, which is easy to do because both are round fruits and pretty comparable
Like you can't understand what a reactive abuse case (which centers on what trauma does to the brain) has to do with a girl killing the man who trafficked her?
I can understand it but that's not the real question is it? The question posed was why one person was treated differently by the courts than the other.
The answer was because one person attacked their active abuser in self defense while the other escaped,then months later, in an act of revenge, planned and executed their murder and arson.
Of course, another key difference is that she took a plea deal. Which means she never actually went to trial. Her legal team knew self defense was never gonna fly either.
Kizer wasn't "found" guilty. She entered a "guilty" plea back in May.
Hughes entered a "not guilty" plea, and took her case to trial. A jury agreed with her plight and acquitted her.
Kizer might have been similarly exonerated by another jury, but she did not avail herself of her right to a trial by a jury of her peers.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
Wow, bootlicker, term of '24?