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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 230 points 2 years ago (27 children)

Wait are you trying to tell me that the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to a state he didn’t live in to shoot protestors he didn’t know ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with wanted to kill people?? Wow I am shocked. Shocked!

Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • load more comments (27 replies)
    [–] 103 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This fuck should be in jail.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Sounds like he will be soon enough considering the path he's been on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)

    Sure wish this had come to light during the trial.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This was known back then. The judge blocked it. I can kind of see why because he didn't shoot any shoplifters. He shot people who threatened, chased, and assaulted him.

    The whole situation was stupid and he shouldn't have been there but from all the video I've seen of the actual event he was pretty selective with his targets when it came to actually shooting people. It wasn't consistent with his bragging. I kind of wish people would stop giving him attention at this point because all they're accomplishing is giving him a platform to grift rightwingers from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    The analysis I read from a lawyer explained how Wisconsin's state laws on self defense are weirdly complex, and due to the exact order of events, under those laws, his intent technically didn't matter, and that's why it was inadmissible evidence. In most states it would be admissable, and he would be guilty. He even listed the laws out and while I don't recall any of the details now, it did seem perfectly logical to my layman's understanding. So it's not that the judge was biased, it's just that Rittenhouse, through dumb luck, happened to fall through a legal loophole. Wisconsin needs to fix it's laws, because it's abundantly clear he wanted to kill those people and morally speaking, I consider him to be an unrepentant murderer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 54 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    All those people that defended this douche when I said there was proof of intention that was dismissed by a biased judge can fuck all the way off.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Let's stop giving this idiot a voice in the media, please.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    The prosecution team was 100% to blame for this little shit not getting what he deserved. I hope the litigants in the civil suit do a better job, but to be honest, they barely even need to try. Even I could put on a suit and walk in off the street and convince the jury of his liability in those killings. And that's just using the evidence we had back in 2020. With these text messages, I could call it in over Zoom while driving around delivering pizzas for 40 minutes.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    It's easy to talk out of your ass about how you would have done a better job, but you clearly have no idea what the circumstances were that the prosecution team was dealing with. This particular piece of evidence for example was attempted to be admitted but was denied by the judge for being "irrelevant to the case." The prosecution was fighting a court stacked against them and you would have had a hard time as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    Murderous sociopaths gonna murderousociapathize

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    So many gun owners I know share similar sentiments. Gun ownership to them is all about getting a legal kill. America is disgusting.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 14 points 2 years ago*

    what really did it for me was his ADHD pacing around in circles while the riot vehicles rolled in. this was a manic little kid, way too excited to be holding a gun.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Had to check if this was theonion@

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Why this specific instance of Rittenhouse exposing himself as bloodthirsty when there were many more instances before it?

    Is there some "fifty flags" rule before you can say they're planning to murder people?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›