A former spokesperson for Kyle Rittenhouse says he became disillusioned with his ex-client after learning that he had sent text messages pledging to “fucking murder” shoplifters outside a pharmacy before later shooting two people to death during racial justice protests in Wisconsin in 2020.

Dave Hancock made that remark about Rittenhouse – for whom he also worked as a security guard – on a Law & Crime documentary that premiered on Friday. The show explored the unsuccessful criminal prosecution of Rittenhouse, who killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

As Hancock told it on The Trials of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 90-minute film’s main subject had “a history of things he was doing prior to [the double slaying], specifically patrolling the street for months with guns and borrowing people’s security uniforms, doing whatever he could to try to get into some kind of a fight”.

Hancock nonetheless said he initially believed Rittenhouse’s claims of self-defense when he first relayed his story about fatally shooting Rosenbaum and Huber. Yet that changed when he later became aware of text messages that surfaced as part of a civil lawsuit filed by the family of one of the men slain in Kenosha demanding wrongful death damages from Rittenhouse.

  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    It would have made zero difference. Actions speak louder than words, and what he did that day directly contradicts this ‘message’.

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      He said he wanted to shoot a bunch of people for imagined slights, and he went on to do exactly that.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        He went on to shoot people for imagined slights?

        There is video, goofball. Three people attempted to murder him, unprovoked.

        It’s not imagined that Rosenbaum screamed a literal death threat at him and then chased him down and tried to take his weapon to make good on said threat.

        It’s not imagined that Huber tried to kill Rittenhouse with full swings of a skateboard (over 10 pounds on average, inarguably a lethal weapon when swung at the head) to the head, one of which connected.

        It’s not imagined that Grosskreutz pointed his handgun (by the way, actually illegally possessed, unlike Rittenhouse’s rifle) at Rittenhouse’s head, before Rittenhouse raised his rifle and shot his arm (having a faster reaction time literally saved his life in that instance). Hell, he literally admitted to that being the sequence of events in court.

        The only imagining is happening on your side. The facts contradict your narrative, that’s why you have no choice but to grasp at straws and lie when you’re confronted by them.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Three people attempted to murder him, unprovoked.

          I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”. It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.

          It’s almost like the “good guy with a gun” is an idiotic idea which turns situations into powder kegs of confusion and violence where everyone thinks they’re the good guy and bullets start flying.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            53 minutes ago

            I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”.

            Who cares what you would consider provocation? The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it. No one reacted negatively to his arrival while obviously visibly armed, nor his walking around visibly armed, for hours, while he handed out water bottle and gave first aid to people. And why is it that the first person to react negatively to him was a maniac who pissed because the dumpster fire he set was extinguished? His rage had literally nothing to do with Rittenhouse’s weapon.

            If the mere existence of the gun was so provocative, explain why no one there gave a shit about it. Reconcile your assertion with the facts, if you can.

            It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.

            That’s not really relevant, because Huber and Grosskreutz’s actions are completely nonsensical regardless of whether they assessed Rittenhouse as one or the other accurately. They both decided to try and kill Rittenhouse, and he prevented them from doing so, absolutely justified in defending his life against two more attempted murders, after already being forced to do so once, with Rosenbaum.

            Not to mention that Rittenhouse was moving TOWARD the police line to report what had just happened with Rosenbaum, verbally announcing that he was doing so, when the other two decided they wanted to kill him instead.