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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s already a really bad standard. There’s people who have had the same trial 4 times and there was more than reasonable doubt as to their guilt. If the prosecutor wanted to try Rittenhouse again he could have. And loosening this standard will only make it easier to put innocent people in prison.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Sure we would… We can’t even keep from executing innocent people in the current system and you want to make it easier to convict innocent people.

          • ravhall@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I suppose that’s one lens to look at it with.

            Why don’t we just stop prosecuting crimes altogether? Seems like the best way to prevent innocent people from being convicted.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Welcome to 1950s America, conservative judges and juries bending over backwards to let white murderers walk. If we break the Justice system to counter them though they don’t lose. They win. They will use that to cause even more havoc on the poor and minority victims the police serve up.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Sometimes a new trial is allowed if new evidence comes to light. But I’m guessing that this was known evidence that was suppressed by the judge.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not evidence of anything. Actions speak louder than words. The actions he took that day directly contradict any stated intention to shoot anyone. He used his weapon as a literal last resort all 3 times, when not doing so would have meant forfeiting his own life.

        Textbook self-defense.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          He created the situation he needed to escape from. That’s textbook offense. You don’t get to create confrontation and call it defense.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Crossing state lines specifically to confront protestors with a deadly weapon very much is.

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Crossing state lines

                You mean traveling one town over, where he used to work and where his dad lives, an area he had exponentially greater ties to than any of the people who attacked him did?

                Gee, wonder why you don’t say it that way. Could it be because you’re trying to make it sound like he traveled far out of his way to an unfamiliar area, because that helps your narrative about him ‘being where he doesn’t belong’ (while conveniently not considering whether any of his attackers ‘belonged’ there)? Hoping that the technically-true “cross state lines” obscures the fact that he lived on the border of the other state?

                You’re absolutely transparent. Don’t try this disingenuous garbage on someone who knows the facts and knows about your pathetic rhetorical maneuvers.

                specifically to confront protestors with a deadly weapon

                He confronted literally no one. And no, existing while armed in a state where open carry is legal doesn’t count.

                He wasn’t even counter-protesting!

                Do you know what “confront” means?

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Funny we have him on text saying that’s what he was doing and on video doing exactly that.

                  I don’t think I’m the one in need of a dictionary.

                  Oh wow at first I completely missed the totally original claim that the protestors weren’t from the area. Tell Fox news I said hi.

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Funny we have him on text saying that’s what he was doing and on video doing exactly that.

                    Lie. I defy you to link to that video, with timestamp, of him “doing exactly that”.

                    the totally original claim that the protestors weren’t from the area

                    It’s not a ‘claim’. It’s a fact.

    • mycelium underground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      While great in this application, overall this is an extremely shit idea. Do you really think the same court that let the dipshit go wouldn’t abuse the change by trying the poor and minorities over and over until charges stick?

      Life is complicated, think through the consequences of your ideas.

      Edit: spelling

      • pingveno@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        And not just the poor and minorities. Trump apparently had the DOJ go after people he perceived as disloyal or political enemies, costing them millions of dollars in legal fees. Imagine if the government then just got a redo whenever it wanted. Even for a fairly wealthy person, that’s going to be a potent tool to silence them.