Mount Kisco, New York (CNN) -- No one disputes Douglas Kennedy carried his newborn Bo through the maternity ward of a suburban New York hospital and tried to take the baby outside. Nor is there any question an altercation ensued, involving nurses attempting to keep the baby on the floor.

But beyond that, there are only open questions -- especially about why it all happened and who is to blame.

Answers finally started to trickle in on Monday, as the trial of the late Robert F. Kennedy's youngest son began with opening statements and four witnesses taking the stand.

Judge John Donahue -- not a jury -- is hearing the case involving misdemeanor charges of harassment and child endangerment.

Kicking off the trial, the two sides outlined significantly divergent scenarios of what happened last January at Northern Westchester Hospital.

According to Assistant District Attorney Amy Puerto, the nurses were simply following protocol set up in newborns' interests when they tried to keep baby Bo from leaving the hospital.

The infant's father not only didn't back down, but he fought back -- even twisting one nurse's arm and kicking another -- the prosecutor said.

One of the nurses, Anna Lane, testified Monday that she'd initially reached in to hold open an elevator door to prevent Kennedy from leaving that way. When he headed toward a stairway door, she ran to it and put her hand on the doorknob.

"I had my hand behind my back and he grabbed my left hand -- which was on the doorknob -- and twisted my arm," said Lane.

Kennedy raised his foot and kicked another nurse, Cari Luciano, who'd come to help before entering the stairway, Lane added. But he only got down as far as the next landing, where he was met by security.

The defense team was tough on the nurse. Suggesting she had an ulterior motive given Kennedy's high profile, lawyer Robert Gottlieb questioned a tearful Lane why -- if recounting her story was so emotionally difficult -- she had recounted her version of what happened so soon after the incident on NBC's "Today Show."

Fellow defense lawyer Celia Gordon, in her opening statement, suggested Kennedy was calm and that the situation only deteriorated because of Lane. Any contact with the nurses was due to a father's instinctual reflex to "keep someone from ripping his baby from his arms," the attorney added.

"(Lane) was abrasive, confrontational and changed the entire tone of the discussion ... and wanted to let him know who was in charge of his baby," Gordon said.

The incident occurred at the hospital in Mount Kisco, located about 40 miles north of New York City and where this week's trial is taking place.

After Kennedy was arraigned in February, his attorney released a statement stating that nurses initially agreed to let him take the baby outside and demanding "appropriate disciplinary action" be taken against Lane and Luciano.

Timothy Haydock, a doctor at the hospital and longtime family friend who was with Kennedy at the time, asserted in the statement that "nurses were the only aggressors."

But neither nurse recognized Kennedy as the child's father and intended to protect the baby, who apparently had not been discharged, according to Elliot Taub, the attorney for both nurses. They were trying to enforce hospital rules, he said.

The hospital, in New York's Westchester County, issued its own statement in February supporting its nurses.

"At Northern Westchester Hospital, patient safety is our priority and we completely support the actions of our nursing staff in this case as they were clearly acting out of concern for the safety of a newborn baby."

Funny...I was just thinking about this the other day. I think there are many A causes B causes A scenarios we can look at. The one I was thinking about is the brain-state. It is a fact that the electrical activity of the brain causes a magnetic field to exist, but experiments have shown that manipulation of this field has a profound effect on thought (hence an effect on the synapse in the brain). It seems to me that the field brings more order & control to the chaotic firing of neurons, but the order that it might bring arises from the semi-ordered(?) chaos of the synapses in the first place. Apparently brain function is the result of a sort of closed-loop feedback. So what do we think with, the cells or the field they generate?...Obviously both.

We are now left to wonder which came first, the chicken or the egg? The correct answer now appears to be that since each causes and is an effect of the other, neither could have been first and the question is therefore nonsensical.

Can you please elaborate more?

An example would be better.

I assume you guys didn't read the link I posted at the top.

Here's the thing, as we look closer and closer at the smallest bits of the universe we're beginning to see things that suggest that reality isn't real.

When you look at a photograph very closely, like under a microscope, you can see the distortions. And that's the kind of thing they're seeing when they look closely at "reality." Distortions.

The link explained a measurement that's within our current ability to take and would confirm that we're living inside a simulation, if we are.

Another reason for "concealed carry".

No.

Whole brain simulation

A longer term goal is to build a detailed, functional simulation of the physiological processes in the human brain: "It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years," Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain Project said in 2009 at the TED conference in Oxford.[4] In a BBC World Service interview he said: "If we build it correctly it should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does."[4]

"The [Port Authority] officer took possession of the handgun and made it safe."

It also shows that an actual education in a field is helpful. Cool sounding youtube sound bites and out of context web quotes don't get very far.

If the centripetal force exceeded the force of gravity, the body would come apart and wouldn't exist anymore. In fact, it wouldn't exist in the first place.

I gave you the definition I was working from earlier:

"free will"…freedom of choice (if an event is not determinable, it and its effect(s) can only be known in terms of probability)

"determinism"… no freedom of choice (If an event is determinable, it and its effect(s) must be inevitable such that no other possibility or choice exists)

If you are a physicist, then I'd like for you to answer my questions. If you are not a physicist, the please provide hyperlinks to the answers.

Have you noticed how he slides effortlessly from one absolute statement to another even thought they are incompatible? And the connection between EM forces and neutrino particle physics ... Wow! If we only had a big magnet we could control the rate of radioactive decay!!!!