‘I believed things he told me that I now understand to be one of … many lies,’ Dave Hancock says in new Rittenhouse documentary

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.

  • @[email protected]
    16•1 month ago

    I think anyone who claims open carrying a firearm doesn’t escalate a situation is either incredibly unaware, or intentionally ignorant. There’s a reason they teach about this sort of dynamic in policing and self-defense classes.

    Rittenhouse defended himself reasonably, but absolutely escalated the situation by bringing a firearm to defend a local business, per his own testimony.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate
      -13•1 month ago

      I think anyone who claims open carrying a firearm doesn’t escalate a situation is either incredibly unaware, or intentionally ignorant.

      It’s much more likely that you just don’t live in an open carry state, so you’re projecting how you’d feel about it if it happened where you do live, unable to empathize with the fact that it’s much more mundane to someone who does live in a state with legal open carry.

      How do you contend with the fact that nobody reacted negatively to his arrival, nor his presence over several hours? That’s the fact that your contention cannot escape. You can claim it’s inherently provocative/aggressive/escalatory to be armed there that day, but how do you explain that no one actually there gave a shit about it? No one ran screaming from him when he showed up. He was walking around giving first aid, handing out water bottles, extinguishing fires, all while obviously armed with a long rifle, and literally no one cared.

      Even when someone DID react negatively to him, that reaction had literally NOTHING to do with his gun! Rosenbaum was pissed that the dumpster fire he set got put out!

      Your claim that his being armed, in and of itself, escalated the situation, simply does not hold any water.

      • @[email protected]
        6•1 month ago

        Solid assumptions! I’m actually a former competition shooter at the state level, but never national. I personally own an AR-15 that I use at the range sometimes.

        I won’t be replying anymore, because you’re clearly as blinded by ideology as the people you rail so hard against. I hope you’re a teenager that will one day look back on this mentality with a sense of personal growth.

        Have a good one.

        • ObjectivityIncarnate
          -4•1 month ago

          Shooting competitively is completely irrelevant to whether it’s mundane to see someone in a public place armed with a rifle, in public.

          The fact that you still can’t get around, is that nobody in that area on that day in Kenosha was intimidated by Rittenhouse being there armed, neither on arrival, nor as he walked around with the gun on him the whole time. The fact that your REFUSE to even address this fact and instead try to evade it over and over proves that you know it’s a brick wall your assumption runs smack into.

          Stop being such an intellectual coward, and admit your argument holds no water.

          you’re clearly as blinded by ideology

          Bullshit, I’m the one stating facts and you’re the one insisting your baseless assumptions are true, even when there is evidence directly contradicting it.

          You’re just desperately trying to rationalize your unwillingness to confront reality honestly, by constantly repeating the same nonsense.

        • ObjectivityIncarnate
          -6•1 month ago
          1. Washington isn’t Wisconsin.
          2. You still can’t get around the fact that no matter how much anyone claims it was a big deal, the people there did not think it was a big deal. So the claim that it was inherently provocative/aggressive/escalatory has zero merit. Again, even when he was aggressed upon, the aggression was COMPLETELY UNRELATED to his weapon.

          Face facts.