‘I believed things he told me that I now understand to be … 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 Chicago 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”.

  • yeather
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Small arms are not inherently offensive or defensive weapons. In fact a pistol is more defensive than offensive in many circumstances. The only true offensive weapons are those that cannot be used defensively, ones that cannot discriminate against targets, for example, a grenade.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m still going to stand by my previous comment.

      My point was that for small arms to be used as an effective protection against threat, they must be used before the threat is imminent, i.e., in a “first strike” offensive capacity.

      While it’s possible that an open carried firearm might have a deterrent effect, its presence makes every situation into “one with a gun in it,” which is necessarily less safe than one without a gun in it.

      • yeather
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        By your second point, the situation only becomes less safe for one person, the one without a gun. Having a firearm makes you more safe against a threat without one, and no more or less safe from a threat with one.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nope, it makes you less safe, too, especially if the threat is closer than 25 feet. They have the opportunity to wrest the gun from your control and use it against you.

          • yeather
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            If someone is attacking me, I would rather take the chance of getting my gun out and ending them than trying to wrestle with them and potentially losing. If someone is attempting to kill you, I would take the great equalizer any day.