Grosskreutz -the prosecution's star witness!- admitted that Rittenhouse did not fire at him until after Grosskreutz aimed his handgun at Rittenhouse(!).
Thus the prosecution's star witness justifies Rittenhouse's firing at him.
Grosskreutz even volunteered sua sponte that Rittenhouse was at risk of head trauma in the seconds before Grosskreutz aimed his gun at Rittenhouse(!!).
Thus the prosecution's star witness justifies Rittenhouse's shots at the man who kicked him in the head and the man who swung a skateboard at his head.
The medical examiner says marks on Rosenbaum's hand indicate it was close to or touching the muzzle of Rittenhouse's rifle(!!!). This, together with the video showing Rittenhouse retreating, justifies Rittenhouse's shots at Rosenbaum.
That leaves no murder or attempted murder case against Rittenhouse. That's the prosecution's main witnesses' doing.
Then Debruin accused the prosecution of trying to get him to change his story, and got into a he-said-he-said on the stand with the prosecutor about a meeting he had with the prosecutors(!!!!). This means that either the witness is lying under oath and so committing perjury, or the prosecutor -- who is an officer of the court -- is lying to the court! You can't make this stuff up. What can possibly remedy that situation? The bare minimum is a bar complaint seeking the prosecutor's disbarment.
A detective admitted on the witness stand that he had a search warrant for Grosskreutz's phone that the prosecution told him not to execute(!!!!!), and that they didn't take Ziminsky's gun (he was the first to discharge a firearm, in the direction of Rittenhouse, while chasing Rittenhouse, which further justifies Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense). Together with the Debruin issue and with subsequent gross misconduct by the prosecution, the prosecution is now looking malicious.
These are the prosecution's witnesses!! What the **** are they doing?! The incompetence they are demonstrating is unbelievable.
And then the prosecutor crosses a number of lines in court besides the one mentioned above with Debruin. Trying to use a defendant's silence against him is an absolute no-no (note though: under Salinas vs. Texas, if a defendant said nothing at all upon arrest, not even that they want a lawyer, or that they're pleading their 5th amendment right to stay silent, then that can be used against them at trial, but this isn't relevant here). And several other incidents I'm not listing.
The prosecutors also display a severe lack of knowledge of firearms and firearms law -- surprising for a prosecutor who must have many firearms cases. (This trial has been very educational.) They tried to get Rittenhouse to admit that at 17 years of age he could not possess a rifle under Wisconsin law when in fact he could (what he couldn't do was purchase a rifle at 17) -- this is simply not something for the witness to admit as it is a matter of law and only the judge can rule on that, but still, Rittenhouse knew the law and answered correctly.
The thing about the prosecution telling the detective to not execute a valid search warrant for their star witness' phone is absolutely shocking and astounding. That alone should be enough to toss less notable cases out.
The mind boggles at all of this.
It's pretty clear that the judge wants to toss the prosecutor out of the court, and probably the whole case as well, but isn't doing it -- possibly for good reasons, and/or possibly for bad reasons, but there's multiple rationales for allowing the trial to continue under these circumstances.
It's also clear that the prosecutor is crossing those lines on purpose (one instance is one thing, two is pretty surprising, three is purposeful). Either they are trying to get a mistrial without prejudice so they can try again and that time not get sandbagged by their own witnesses, or they're trying to get a mistrial with prejudice so they can have another round of riots (yes, the latter is a pretty cynical take, but it has to be considered a possibility at this point).
If there's a mistrial w/o prejudice, I think the prosecution can possibly win a conviction on one charge at retrial with the benefit of hindsight and knowing what won't work from the first trial. They shouldn't get two bites at the apple though after all their misconduct.