Kyle Rittenhouse Update | What is the Meaning of the Verdict?

This video answers the questions: Can I provide an update on the Kyle Rittenhouse case including an analysis of the verdict? Did Anthony Huber believe that Rittenhouse was an active shooter?

Dr. Grande’s book Harm Reduction:

References:

[LouisGiliberto]

Our society is lacking in two important areas: critical thinking and civil discourse. The lack of those two items will be our downfall.

[cubbyvespers]

It is getting more and more difficult to hold a rational conversation with anyone in my life about anything.

[aq]

“Political beliefs are not information.” Wonderfully stated.

[michaelm]

Thanks for stating & sticking facts by not involving political nonsense. You have my biggest respect 🙏

[Tymbus]

The moment one of the witnesses admitted that he had pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him was the moment the prosecution lost their case.

[lnc-toku]

"The outcome of a criminal trial, should not be interpredated as supporting or refuting a political belief."
This whole video was brilliant, Dr. Grande!
I also loved your mention of Norm Macdonald! ♡

[davefritz.]

If only we lived in a society where there was a truly unbiased media that would present in-depth factual information like this…

[hudsonvalicity]

I almost got upset but I have to say I agree. Very good commentary!! That politics crap should stay out of the courtroom. That shouldn’t be what a court case is about and definitely not what a guilty or not guilty decision is based on.

[SugaryPhoenixxx]

I clicked on this video thinking I was going to be rolling my eyes into the back of my head. But the way you voiced your opinions was so concise & well articulated & am flabbergasted. I could have never put this into perspective myself nearly as well as you just did. This is a very reasonable & objective opinion. Very impressive Dr Grande.

[villesanti]

Great analysis. Politics, no matter the side, shouldn't be in a court room. Only evidence.

[RoseRoseRoseRoseRoseRose]

_Lesson number one: The courtroom should be a place where evidence is considered not political ideology._

_Lesson number two: politics do not always reflect reality._

~~~ Dr. Grande (2021) at 11:00 ~~~

You nailed it, as always❣ 👏

[goldenphimusic]

I love how you establish there is a difference between doing something immoral and being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we put people in jail because of things we don’t morally agree with, almost anyone could be put in jail.

[billyboy]

I was shocked when I heard MSNBC tried to photograph the jurors. In a case like this, that is considered intimidation. They should lose whatever licenses they have as a news organization and charges filed . I was a juror in a gang related case, some years ago, and that’s the last thing I would want would to be identified and harassed (or worse).

[ElisaBerlin_]

“Political beliefs are not information.” Yes. Refreshingly fair.

[IamCanadian]

"I think the prosecution did a fairly good job--"
Me: lolwut?
"--at providing...a defense...I think they forgot what team they are on."
Me: there we go!

Your humour is on point, well done!

On a more serious note, I 100% everything you stated. I think he was only charged and brought to trial to appease the political masses.

I want to make a few things clear with my pov: I do believe the jury made the right call and that Rittenhouse clearly acted in self-defense, but I don't think this makes him a hero, nor do I think the ones he shot are heroes either.

[glant]

Greatly appreciated this video. I've lately found myself completely burnt out with everything being politicized, and even went so far to post a few comments on "politicized" videos just to piss off people I don't agree with. Effectively becoming part of the problem. Hearing a well thought out video was just the kick in the ass I needed. Thanks.

[Ruuinx]

I will say it is rare to see something nowadays without a heavy political stance. It’s… refreshing to say the least. Keep up the good work

[SEAZNDragon]

Ironically the trial of Ahmed Aubrey’s killers is going on in Georgia and almost opposite of the Rittenhouse case. While Rittenhouse can claim he was chased and threatened, Aubrey’s killers chased him and approached him armed only because he was seen in an under constructed house. Interestingly there hadn’t been a lot of people defending Aubrey’s killers.

[cglenn]

Dr. G, This video was delivered so carefully and respectfully. Kudos for tackling such a polarizing topic, and for doing so with such eloquence and thoughtfulness. I always learn so much from your uploads,

[elisawyer]

Dr. Grande's post here, posing itself as a careful and unbiased analysis, is quite damaging in that it does not spend equal time on Rittenhouse's background. It was Rittenhouse who was on trial, not the people he killed, It is Rittenhouse's state of mind when he shot the victims that was pertinent. There are some very complex and nuanced points that have to do with the intersection of ideas of justice, morality, and the law that are at play here, and instead of focusing on the real source of confusion, Grande is misdirecting attention to the state of mind of the victims which is irrelevant to the jury's verdict.