In the first article of this series, I provided the precedent–there really is no Maryland law directly bearing on the case–that may determine the outcome. By bringing this case in the first place, the prosecutor is seemingly following in the high-heeled footsteps of Angela Corey who, Ahab-like, pursued her white whale in the George Zimmerman case. Fortunately, rational principles of self-defense were vindicated in that case. It remains to be seen whether that will be the result in the Matthew Pinkerton case.
Glock 17
Keep in mind, gentle readers, that I do not have all of the facts in this case. I’ve searched the Internet for police and legal information, including the charging affidavit, and have had no luck finding it. Unless it is delayed, the trial is supposedly scheduled to begin in February, so presumably more information will become available in that process. What this means is that I can, for the moment, analyze the case based only on the information I have. Suffice it to say that my analysis and views may certainly change based on future revelations.
Army Paratrooper.org does have some statements from Michael Pinkerton (Matthew’s brother who was present at the time of the shooting) and Jessica Pinkerton (Matthew’s wife). Michael said:
The night in question Matt feared for his safety. After closing the door on the gentleman, he [Mr. Green] chose to barge thru and enter the house. Matt told him several times to get out but he insisted to charge forward. Thus resulting in him getting shot. The press is making it sound as though Mr. Green and Matt knew each other well but that was not the case.
The Green family and their friends have been making life difficult for the Pinkertons:
Since that night, we sit on the front porch as we always did, to enjoy our coffee and a cigar after dinner. The only difference is, now we occasionally have a drive by of friends of the guy shot yelling out ‘murderer.’ we are worried that once the trial begins, that if they are doing this now, what will it be like then?
Michael also explained that Green was wearing a hoodie, which could easily have allowed him to conceal weapons:
He [Green] kept coming forward so Matt fired. He rocked backwards and took another step forward at which time Matt took his second shot. He stumbled backwards and fell out the door onto the porch.
When the shots were fired Jessica called 911, Matt spoke to the operator; he removed the clip from his gun and the bullet in the chamber. Police arrived within five minutes.
Why was the case filed? Michael:
feels as though had it not been an election year, and the fact that the new gun laws went into effect in Maryland October 1st, that this would not be happening.
Green’s relationship with Jessica appears to be substantially different than some have suggested. While Matthew was stationed in Korea, Jessica’s brother had a serious car accident and was in a coma. “Green was a friend of her brother who, along with other friends, volunteered to help Jessica with the kids and her brother.”
According to Jessica:
His group of friends were very supportive to me and my mother and my husband was overseas (Korea) so I was a full time, employed, single mom of two boys, and my only help with the kids for after school was in a coma. I was also attending college full time online as well. These friends, including Green, began spending time at my home allowing myself to trade shifts at the hospital with my mom (my father passed in 2010). The only family here is my mom, brother, me Matt and the boys.
Most of the friends began fading off the longer my brother remained in the hospital. Green, however, began fighting with his mom and needed a place to sleep. Matt and I have opened our doors to multiple people who needed a place to stay over our 15 years of marriage, so I allowed him to stay here. I also had a single mother with her two girls living here at the time as well.
Jessica’s brother eventually came out of the coma and was transferred to a rehabilitation facility. Some have suggested that Jessica was allowing Green to “party in the basement,” but Jessica’s explanation is different than some have assumed:
I had finished my semester, and took the following semester off, so now it was all about his convenience [Mr. Green], he would have his friends over and they would party in the basement.
It sounds like Green was taking advantage of Jessica, which she echoed:
They took advantage of me long enough.
Matthew was due to return home soon, and she asked all of her houseguests to move out. Some did. Green did not:
When Matthew returned home, the mother and her two children had already left, but Green remained, so he asked Green to leave. At this point, Jessica informed me that ‘Green punched about 15 holes in the wall.’
‘Basically, Green was angry that Matt took away his ‘life’ when he returned home and told him he was no longer welcome here. Green had texted me sometime in July or August saying that he missed the kids, and Matt didn’t deserve us and that he deserved a chance. He wanted more.
Peter O’Neill, Pinkerton’s attorney, added detail:
When Jessica Pinkerton tried to end the relationship, Green continued to pursue it.’
Mr. Green arrived early on Sunday morning and staked out the Pinkerton residence. When he knocked on the door, Matthew retrieved his handgun, a Glock 17 9mm, and put it in his back pocket, as he was not expecting a visitor that evening.
Upon opening the door, Green identified himself and demanded to see Jessica. Matthew advised Mr. Green to leave and that he had no business being there. When Matthew shut the door to diffuse the situation, Mr. Green broke the door in.
After being warned to leave, Mr. Green was shot once as ‘he was motioning to his waist band flipping his shirt.
ANALYSIS:
It appears that the defense will argue that this was not a jealous husband shooting a man who had an affair with his wife. Rather, this was the case of a man taking advantage of Jessica’s kindness and hospitality, imagining a relationship that didn’t exist and attempting to impose his fantasies on her. It appears that Green had no property interest or right in Pinkerton’s home, and had, before the night of the shooting, been forced to leave once and for all.
It also appears that until the moment Green broke into the home after being told to leave, Matthew Pinkerton, despite being armed, demonstrated no intent to use his handgun, and handled the situation entirely appropriately. We still don’t know the exact time frame of the incident, but it appears that Matthew simply had no time to call the police, and even if he had, there would have been insufficient time for them to arrive to deal with Green.
O’Neill also provides an important factor in asserting that Green appeared to be trying to manipulate something at his waist, which–along with Green’s anger, his breaking into the home and charging Pinkerton, presumably caused Pinkerton to fear for his safety and fire.
We can expect the prosecution to try to portray Pinkerton as a jealous, cuckolded husband, in a rage and determined to murder Green. It appears, however, that the testimony of everyone involved–and Matthew’s actions–will not support these contentions. How could he have known that it was Green at the door? Despite twice having words with Green, Pinkerton did not touch him, did not shoot him, reasonably told him to leave, and closed and locked the door. It was Green, by choosing to break in the door and advance on Pinkerton, that sealed his fate.
The prosecution will have to demonstrate convincingly that Pinkerton intended to kill Green because of a supposed sexual relationship between Green and Jessica, but even if Green did have an affair with Jessica, Matthew demonstrated his integrity, responsibility and restraint by not shooting him when he had the chance. He did not do so much as lay a hand on Green. Apparently Matthew confronted Green twice: when he told him to leave and Green responded by punching multiple holes in the walls, and during Green’s 2 AM attack, when instead of shooting him, he told him to leave and closed the door.
None of this demonstrates criminal intent. None of it fulfills the elements of the offenses, and it surely does not support the theory the prosecution is likely to present to the jury.
Let’s deal with these primary questions I raised in the first article from the points of view of the prosecution and the defense. Keep in mind yet again gentle readers that Maryland State Law provides no clear guidance on these issues. There are precedents that bear on them, but precedents are guidelines, not law, and even though Pinkerton–if convicted–may eventually be exonerated by that precedence on appeal, he would almost certainly have been dishonorably discharged from the military, spent years in jail, and incurred legal expenses he would likely never be able to repay in the process.
Is it inherently reasonable to arm oneself before answering an unexpected 2 AM knock on the door?
Obviously, the prosecutor–Glen Neubauer–is either an anti-gun zealot, is riding what he sees as a helpful political wave, or in the single-minded pursuit of what he sees as an easy win, is indistinguishable from an anti-gun zealot. He will surely argue that the mere fact that Pinkerton armed himself prior to answering the door is evidence of a depraved mind, perhaps even of premeditation. After all, what reasonable person grabs a gun to answer the door? He obviously intended to kill whoever was at the door. Why else would he grab a gun, a Glock 17 with a “high-capacity” magazine? The prosecution will almost certainly try to paint Pinkerton as a jealous, shamed husband, anxious to kill the man who had an affair with his wife. He may even suggest that Pinkerton knew that Green was at the door, or suspected that he would be.
The defense will argue that it is not only inherently reasonable for any law-abiding citizen to arm himself to answer an unexpected 2 AM knock on the door, it is entirely constitutional and lawful to do so. Heller settled that question (at least until a leftist president is able to pack the Supreme Court with anti-Constitution zealots). In such cases the type of weapon or its ammunition capacity are meaningless. The Glock 17 is precisely the kind of common, usual handgun Heller referenced as being Constitutionally protected. What matters is what Pinkerton did with the weapon, which, during the verbal confrontation with Green, was obviously nothing. He demonstrated his good will and lack of criminal intent by not in any way making the handgun part of the confrontation, a confrontation started by Green, who after all, came to Pinkerton’s home and demanded entry where he was not welcome or lawfully allowed to be.
In fact, Pinkerton’s reasonable fear in arming himself was vindicated by Green’s actions in breaking down the door and attacking Pinkerton. It was his foresight in arming himself and his effective and proper use of the handgun–he fired only two rounds–that protected himself, his family and his guests from criminal attack.
Finding a hostile and raging (I’m making a reasonable presumption here) suitor of one’s wife at the door, refusing him entry, telling him to leave and closing the door, is it reasonable to believe, when he kicks in the door and charges you–in your own home–that he intends to do you or your wife serious bodily harm or worse?
The prosecution will try to paint Green as completely reasonable and non-threatening in coming to Pinkerton’s home at 2 AM and demanding to see his wife. He will try to paint Pinkerton as insane with jealousy and just waiting for an opportunity to kill Green, an opportunity he provoked by denying Green the simple opportunity to speak with Mrs. Pinkerton. After all, shouldn’t reasonable adults simply talk out their problems?
If this sounds like the kind of backwards logic often employed by defense attorneys–“your honor, my client was just standing there, minding his own business while admiring his knife, when John Smith ran around the corner and right into the blade–27 times”–it is. As in the Trayvon Martin case, the prosecutor has put him self in the position of arguing that the actions of a criminal intent on breaking into a home and destroying a family are reasonable and proper. Imagine arguing that it’s entirely reasonable and lawful to come to the home of another man and demand to see his wife at 2 AM, and being denied entry, to break down his door and attack him. He will actually have to argue that one must allow a criminal home breaker/home wrecker free reign to work his will.
Again, remember that I don’t have direct knowledge of exactly what was said, however, it appears that Pinkerton, armed as he was, was sufficiently in command of himself as to not brandish or otherwise use the handgun. He employed only speech and did not assault Green. He obviously denied Green entry–which is an entirely reasonable thing for anyone to do with an unwelcome intruder at 2 AM–the time is important–and closed and locked his door, expecting that Green would leave. This too is entirely reasonable and not in any way criminal or excessive. Pinkerton did not escalate the situation, nor did he in any way make it worse. If Green chose to simply turn around and leave, he would certainly have lived that day, and would probably be alive today.
During the seconds that elapse between your closing and locking the door, and the attacker breaking into your home, is it reasonable to believe that you can actually reach a phone, dial 911, receive an answer, clearly explain what is happening–and receive police assistance–that will enable you to avoid defending yourself?
This is one of the largest land mines for the prosecution. He is going to have to argue that Pinkerton must have somehow known that Green was going to break down his door and attack him, and that he did not call 911 so that he could use his handgun, the handgun no reasonable person would ever think of carrying while answering a 2 AM knock on the door, to kill him. He will also have to argue that once one calls 911, one somehow loses the right to act to defend their life because their life is, from that moment, in the hands of the police. He might even go so far as to suggest that if a police dispatcher tells someone not to resist, or to wait for the police before doing anything, this has the force of law and would render any affirmative action they took in defending them self or others, illegal.
This, on its face, is insane. The only reason a prosecutor could make such an argument is that Maryland is predominantly an anti-gun–and in this case, anti-self-defense–state, and provides no specific legal protection for the law-abiding citizen trying to protect his own life within the boundaries of his own home.
Obviously, calling 911 is not a legal prohibition on self-defense. In many parts of the nation, 911 calls often go unanswered, and if they are answered, it can take the police a very long time to arrive. Consider Sandy Hook Elementary School, where the 911 call was promptly answered and dispatched, and every officer in the area did their best to respond to the school as quickly as possible. It took 27 seconds from receiving the 911 call until the call was sent via radio to officers. It took the police 14 minutes and 47 seconds from receiving the radio call before the first officer was able to enter the school. In Detroit, when 911 calls are answered at all, it takes 58 minutes for the police to arrive, and this is for life-threatening emergencies. Even if one were able to reach the 911 dispatcher, and even if the police were able to arrive within five minutes–an extraordinarily short response time–one could easily be severely injured or killed in far less time.
In addition, the police have no legal obligation to protect any individual citizen. Police forces exist to deter crime by their presence and to investigate crime after it has been committed. They will be happy to arrive at the scene of your murder and collect evidence in the hopes of eventually convicting someone of that crime, but they cannot be sued for failing to prevent your murder, or for deciding they don’t care enough to pursue the investigation. In many places, the police don’t recognize even a moral obligation to help. Even if police officers ignore a 911 call for help, or even stand by and watch as a madman with a knife slashes you and others, they cannot be held liable. The Supreme Court case–it’s the law of the land–is Castlerock v. Gonzalez. I wrote about it for PJ Media in December of 2011. And in the obamaconomy, police forces are losing manpower. Most people would be shocked to learn how few police officers are available in their community at any time of the day or night.
After telling Green to leave and locking him out, Pinkerton reasonably hoped he would leave. It was only when Green broke down his door and charged him that Pinkerton was forced to confront the fact that Green had broken into his home and was attacking him. He had no time to call 911, and even if he was in the middle of speaking with a police dispatcher, no reasonable person could be expected to simply do nothing when a raging criminal was breaking into their home and attacking them.
Even if Pinkerton had been able to reach the police and a dispatcher assured him officers were on the way, that does not, by law or common sense, relieve him of the necessity to protect his own life, nor does it legally obligate him to do nothing to defend himself, his home or his family. An answered 911 call, and a dispatcher’s assurance that the police are aware of the call and are responding is nothing more than an implied promise that something, at some point in the future, might be done.
When someone you have denied entry to your home and locked out, breaks down the door and charges you, are you authorized to use deadly force to stop them?
This will be the potentially strongest part of the prosecution’s case. From everything I’ve been able to find, Green was unarmed when he attacked Pinkerton. The prosecution will argue that because he was unarmed, Pinkerton was obligated to do nothing more than to defend himself with his bare hands. On the surface, and as long as one does not think too hard, this makes a kind of sense. Particularly if one were engaged in mutual combat, the requirement to meet force only with similar force applies. Remember that Maryland law does not give the law-abiding the presumption that anyone that breaks into their home and attacks them is there for evil purposes. The law doesn’t presume that criminals breaking into the homes of the innocent are up to no good and that if they end up gravely wounded or dead, it’s their fault.
The prosecution will do its best to forget the facts of the case and argue proportionality. In the use of deadly force, there are three primary–and one related–factors to consider: means, opportunity, jeopardy and proportionality. The prosecution will have to fudge several of these.
“Means” basically means that the attacker has the means to cause serious bodily harm or death. This can be nothing more than bare hands. The prosecution will deny that Green had the means. In other words, he’ll lie.
“Opportunity” means that the attacker was actually present, close enough to the intended victim or victims, to cause serious bodily harm or death. They had the opportunity to do it if they chose.
“Jeopardy” means that the attacker chose to take advantage of their opportunity and was actually about to cause the victim serious bodily injury or death, or was actively trying to do it. One need not wait until the knife is at arms length and beginning its downward arc into one’s head before trying to stop the attack. That a reasonable person would believe that the attack was imminent, or actually in progress is the legal standard.
“Proportionality” is the related issue. Generally, one must meet force with like force. If someone throws a snowball at you, you are not justified in shooting them. If someone pushes you and doesn’t appear about to continue to attack you, you are not justified in grabbing a baseball bat and breaking their leg. In the Pinkerton case, the prosecutor will argue that Green was unarmed, therefore there is no set of circumstances, no combination of means, opportunity and jeopardy, that would have allowed deadly force.
The defense will argue that even unarmed, Green represented not an imminent, but an actual, in-progress threat of serious bodily injury or death. He came to the Pinkerton home crazed with jealousy, determined to take Jessica Pinkerton for himself one way or another. He came at 2 AM, and had almost certainly been watching the home before he approached, in effect, stalking Jessica. He initiated the verbal confrontation with Matthew Pinkerton, and when denied entry into the home, blew his top. In a blind rage, he broke into the home and charged Matthew, who did not have time to carefully examine Green head to toe to determine what kind of weapons he might have. Seeing Green reaching for his waistband—where people secret weapons–he had to act. Waiting for Green to present a weapon would have been too late. Green would already be on top of him, and Pinkerton would have been unable to see what he had in his hands.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court, in Brown v. United States (1921) Justice Holmes observed that “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” Holmes used the facts of the case at hand, but the legal principle is simple: the reasonable man is not expected–nor required by law–to be able to meticulously analyze what is happening when under criminal attack with the time and hindsight available to judges months or years later . If he reasonably believes he is facing seriously bodily injury or death, he may use deadly force without retreating or trying to apply some degree of lesser force. Holmes added:
The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth, it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court… Therefore, in this Court at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than to kill him.
Pinkerton–like any man defending his family and his home–had time only to use the most effective means at hand to stop a raging criminal’s attack. Even unarmed, Green was very dangerous. Single blows cripple and kill people every day, and Green had demonstrated his rage and potential for violence by punching holes in Pinkerton’s walls in the recent past. There were also items in the Pinkerton home–in any home–that Green could have picked up and used as weapons. If Green got by Matthew Pinkerton, he was sufficiently strong to have seriously injured or killed Jessica—virtually any man is strong enough to badly hurt or kill any woman with their bare hands.
Matthew Pinkerton did not have the time to carefully consider five or six different courses of action, to weigh their benefits and drawbacks. He did not have the distance that would have allowed him to safely see precisely what Green had in his hands. He had seconds to stop the charge of a raging madman, a man who broke into his home at 2 AM, intent on harming him and/or his wife. He did not wildly shoot up the neighborhood, but fired two rounds that did precisely what Pinkerton intended them to do: stop the attack. Pinkerton did not intend to kill Green, but he knew he had to stop him. What man in the same circumstances would do less?
FINAL THOUGHTS:
In order to win this case, the prosecutor must trick the jury into ignoring most of the facts. He must paint Kendall Green as an innocent victim. The jury must be willing to disregard the fact that it was Green that caused everything in this case to happen. He chose to come to the Pinkerton’s home at 2 AM. He chose to verbally confront Matthew Pinkerton. Denied entry and locked out, he chose to break down the door, to criminally enter Pinkerton’s home in a rage. He chose to attack Pinkerton, probably to get at Jessica.
The jury will have to believe that Green had only the purest intentions, that he wanted only, on bended knee, to implore Jessica to chose him over her husband (in their own home at 2 AM). They will have to believe that he intended no harm to anyone and that his breaking into the Pinkerton home and charging Matthew Pinkerton were the entirely reasonable actions any man in a similar situation would and should take.
The prosecutor will have to argue that it is inherently unreasonable to arm oneself in response to an unexpected knock on the door at 2AM. If the prosecutor is able to empanel an anti-gun jury–always a possibility in Maryland–they might win on anti-gun sentiment alone. The jury will have to be convinced that a man that had already been rebuffed by Jessica, and who obviously wasn’t willing to take no for an answer, had every right to continue to pursue her and to attack her husband–in his home–in that pursuit. After all, Green was strung along by Jessica. He was merely upset and in love, and who hasn’t been upset and in love? He wasn’t really responsible for his actions.
The prosecutor will have to argue that anyone that fails to call 911 while under direct criminal assault is in some way deserving of being charged with murder, for they obviously have no right whatever to self-defense, not even at 2 AM in their own home.
The jury will have to be willing to believe that when a criminal–for that is what Green indisputably became the moment he forcibly broke into Pinkerton’s home–breaks into their home at 2 AM, is confronted with a handgun pointed at them, and choses to charge them, when that attacker’s hands are inches from their throat, they must somehow focus entirely on calling the police, mildly submitting to criminal assault. They must be willing to allow that criminal to have their way with them and their family.
This case will have serious repercussions for self-defense, particularly in Maryland. If Pinkerton is convicted of anything, what Maryland citizen can believe that they too will not find themselves facing decades in prison for defending their own homes and their own lives?
A trial-level case in one state generally has little or no effect on the law in other states, particularly states with castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. However, if the Trayvon Martin case taught us anything, it is that politics often override law, a fact about which George Zimmerman is more than aware.
Expect anti-gun forces to adopt this case and to ride it as far as it will carry them. A conviction will be used by them as a means of keeping anti-liberty laws alive in Maryland, and as a club to beat down freedom elsewhere.
I’ll continue to report on the case as things develop.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
The hard part is not knowing if there is any more evidence that we haven’t heard. You do make some excellent point and the new info on the relationship between Green and the wife seems entirely reasonable but why make such an issue out on the “non-relationship”? As you say it wasn’t Matthew that went looking for Green and he had the chance to escalate the situation if he wanted. So it shouldn’t matter if there was some sort of relationship so the effort to dispel that possibility concerns me and if we later find it to be true then I would wonder what else is false. Right now tho with the current evidence the case seems clear. Matthew Pinkerton should never of been charged.
Others seem far too eager to make an issue (or create an issue out of whole cloth), so being able to head them off and conclusively refute them is a useful thing.
Dear DaveP:
Quite so. Any attorney must anticipate the arguments of his opponent and be prepared to refute them. To suggest that there is something wrong with this is to potentially reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of the justice system and its working.
Special New Year Eve “wall of text” coming right up! :)
Cliff notes:
1. Pinkerton’s lawyer appears to be opting for “hand in waistband” as the threat that justified shooting. There is no ‘charging’ going on in his reported comments.
2. “A not punching B” works both ways
3. The emotional reaction is knee-jerk and is in absence of enough hard facts – and indeed wilfully ignores aspects of what is available.
.
EEllis said: “but why make such an issue out on the “non-relationship”? “
The answer is very easy.
For some people, the matter has pressed their button. As this is a case of someone in their home shooting someone, it necessarily follows that their action is unquestionably a heroic last resort. Nothing shall taint them or their families & associates. This explains the assertion of “a long list of evidence” (unidentified) that there absolutely was no relationship. The truth is that we don’t know either way, and the factor is somewhat peripheral in any case.
It also necessarily follows that the dead guy was not alone a low and vile type but was also intent on extreme criminal death-threatening violence.
Mike has “searched the Internet for police and legal information, including the charging affidavit, and have had no luck finding it. ”
Presumably all those writing about the case in other blogs are similarly at a loss.
This does not matter. They don’t need no stinking facts. They already know all that they want to know. This is seen as a threat to gun-ownership. Rally the troops.
.
All we can know from what seems available about a “relationship” is that Green lived in the Pinkerton house for a while. The circumstances of him moving were not predicated on a love affair. It seems that he took part in a family situation at least to the extent of living there and looking after the kids in the absences of Mrs Pinkerton. We do seem to know that Green developed strong romantic feelings for Mrs Pinkerton. We know absolutely nothing either way about anything that might have encouraged his feelings.
Romance or not, Green appears to be immature. Turning up knocking at the door at 2 AM, with a bunch of people in the house, is hardly Romeo whispering to Juliet on her balcony. Neither is a single text in a space of about 6 months for that matter.
When I read what details exist, I had just one question:
If the guy was found dead on the front porch, having reportedly fallen backwards, how could he have been charging/rushing inside?
Your question : “but why make such an issue out on the “non-relationship”? ”
My (only and rhetorical) question was : “but why make such an issue out on the “charging/rushing”?”
I had thought that the near-impossibility of any charging/rushing in the light of physics and geography had been well outlined in the previous thread.
Seems not. We’re still madly charging regardless.
Mike writes above “and choses to charge them, when that attacker’s hands are inches from their throat” and “He had seconds to stop the charge of a raging madman” and “had time only to use the most effective means at hand to stop a raging criminal’s attack.”
“Inches from their throat” – but the guy was apparently shot from a distance of 10-15 feet.
According to various Pinkertons, Green went for Pinkerton. According to the chorus, this was a wild charge…. Yadda-yadda.
But….. The first shot stops his wild charge – rocks him back. Wow – the guy must weigh at least 5 ounces!! He then apparently takes one pace forwards. The second shot then blows him backwards across all the distance that he has charged from the doorway and out onto the front porch. Jeese. Any time that guy used to sneeze, he flew 20 feet backwards.
Luckily for Pinkerton, he’s got someone sensible on his side – his lawyer.
Any reasonable jury to whom the physics were pointed out would wonder “Why are they lying about “charging?”
Mike quotes the lawyer above.
Do we see “charging” in there? Nope.
Going by the quote, the lawyer understands physics, etc. He has to come up with a justification that can’t be measured by physics..
So he says “After being warned to leave, Mr. Green was shot once as ‘he was motioning to his waist band flipping his shirt. ”
See? He was not shot due to wild charging. He was shot because “he had his hand in his waistband” sort of thing. The lawyer will argue that Pinkerton was in mortal fear that Green was about to pull a gun – a weapon that he appeared to be having difficulty in finding going by that description.
Heey! Maybe “charging” was a typo that went viral. Maybe they told a reporter that Green was “wildly changing (his shirt)”.
Anyhoo, we have an angry guy – not charging but apparently motioning to his waistband in some vague way.
He has apparently broken in the door. Pinkerton is facing him and apparently holding a gun.
Pinkerton is a model of forbearance.
“Despite twice having words with Green, Pinkerton did not touch him, did not shoot him, reasonably told him to leave, and closed and locked the door. ”
“Twice” – presumably the first was when Pinkerton returned home earlier in the year and told Green to pack his bags, and the second was when Green arrived at the door at 2AM demanding to speak to Mrs Pinkerton.
On neither of those occasions was there any report of Pinkerton assaulting or shooting Green.
But…guess what? On neither of those occasions was there any report of Green assaulting or shooting Pinkerton. On the first occasion, Green punched the wall instead of Pinkerton. On the second occasion he kicked in the door.
Green had what sounds like two completely separate highly-emotional encounters with Pinkerton. On neither occasion did he make any attempt to assault Pinkerton. If he had done so, I’m pretty sure that Pinkerton would have shared this with us.
Now he’s standing in the doorway. His wanted to speak with Jessica. What is the likelihood that he is going to draw a weapon and kill people?
We need more dirt on Green…….. paint him blacker.
Ok. He is said to have been harassing Mrs Pinkerton. Yes. Apparently he sent her a single text “back in July or August”, declaring his love.
We need more….
Ok. He was stalking her….as follows.
Lawyer: “Mr. Green arrived early on Sunday morning and staked out the Pinkerton residence. ”
Mike: “He came at 2 AM, and had almost certainly been watching the home before he approached, in effect, stalking Jessica”
Right. He waited and watched until he could be sure that Pinkerton and his brother would be in the house. Only then, when he knew that Jessica would be in the company of two guys who would not welcome his arrival, did he approach and knock on the door. ….. eh…No! Wait!
There is something about the process and meaning of “staking out” and “stalking” that is missing here.
How about something that is just as plausible as any other ? …..
Green is one of a number of friends of Jessica’s brother. They help her out as she has a lot on her hands with her husband being away.
He ends up living in the house. It sounds like most of the help that Jessica needed was in looking after the kids. He’s living a sort of family life. This fantasy off-the-shelf family life is suddenly ended on Pinkerton’s return home.
He and Pinkerton have a “discussion” – probably of the “Get the f*ck off my lawn” variety. Green apparently has a temper tantrum and punches the wall a number of times. He would have had a choice between punching Pinkerton or the walls, but he apparently opted to punch walls.
Some months later, he sends that one text to Jessica. Other than that, there is no available report of him making any sort of approach to anyone.
Some months after that, he turns up at the door at 2 AM.
If he did sit outside for any time, I would suggest that he needed this time in order to locate some brain cells and connect them. He didn’t have enough cells to think through – ‘Lights on – an additional vehicle outside – they got company – perhaps this is not the best time for romancing my love’.
He knocks. He wants to talk to Jessica. He gets a flavor of “Get the f*ck off my lawn” from Pinkerton and the door slammed in his face.
Cue the wall-punching temper tantrum. I WANT MY MOMMY/FANTASY-FAMILY!!! GIMMIE OR I’LL THROW TOYS OUT OF THE BUGGY!!
He kicks in the door.
The guy is an idiot.
Mike; “He came to the Pinkerton home crazed with jealousy, determined to take Jessica Pinkerton for himself one way or another. ”
“or another” Where did that assertion come from?
Lookit. The guy sounds like an immature asshole (and by currently known history dangerous only to walls and doors).
His campaign so far in half-a-year or so to get Jessica (‘one way or another’) appears to have consisted of a single text message.
Mike: “In a blind rage, he broke into the home and charged Matthew, who did not have time to carefully examine Green head to toe to determine what kind of weapons he might have. ”
Just a moment before, the two had been standing face to face when Pinkerton opened to door to see who was knocking. We don’t know how long that conversation lasted, but Pinkerton would no doubt have assessed the person before him. Being the sort of person who tucks a gun into his back pocket before answering an unexpected knock at 2AM, we can presume that he opened the door carefully and had a good look even before the conversation started. He also had the benefit of knowing who Green was and having had that ‘discussion’ with him some months before.
.
We have one wall-punching idiot who just kicked in a door – but who made no attempt to assault Pinkerton a moment earlier when they were face to face. Nor did he attempt to assault Pinkerton on their last emotional confrontation.
We have Pinkerton who is very understandably enraged – and who possibly has been drinking with his brother and their respective wives.
Ferchr**sakes! He thought he had given this guy his marching orders months ago. Now he turns up at 2AM interrupting the partying and demanding to talk to Jessica. WTF? Now he’s kicked in the door.
Green gets shot.
Pinkerton’s lawyer seems to be very sensibly not talking about wild charging etc. He’s going for hand in the vicinity of a waistband.
.
There’s a lot we don’t know about the details and background to this case.
I find it interesting that some people are so emphatic about ‘details’ that are actually suppositions that would support a position that they have adopted in the absence of knowledge..
.
People make mistakes and misjudge situations all the time.
When they do that while driving a vehicle and death or injury result, there is generally an investigation and possible repercussions.
Respect for human life should demand that all deaths are investigated thoroughly.
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
Now, now. You know that I’m presenting the likely arguments that will be made by the defense and the prosecution–based on the relatively small amount of apparent fact available to me–not claiming that those arguments are representative of revealed truth. This is why I am not making assertions about distances, times, etc. We simply don’t know enough to make such assertions.
Any past incidents/relationships are important to the defense and the prosecution in terms of discerning motive or lack thereof. This kind of speculation and theory spinning is entirely unremarkable in such cases.
I endeavor, always, to draw a clear line between fact, opinion, and speculation. If I’ve failed to do that here, mea culpa, but if I have been successful, I’d appreciate your treating my presentation of speculation as such.
Thanks!
To SB’s credit, the charging after kicking in a door… NO..! WAIT…! Flipping up his shirt -like- he had a weapon (even though none was found, making one wonder why he would do that in the first place).
I bet in the next few weeks we will also hear that some variety of threat was issued after he kicked down the door.
Honestly, though. Kicks in the door, charges in, shot twice, between steps, in which the rounds eject him from the door… after a charge. Of course that sounds stupid. Lets change it.
kicked in the door, and flipped up his shirt like he had a weapon (even though he didn’t have one), and started to come in side. MUCH better regarding an explanation to properly convey the FEARRRRR! ™ that we need. HOOOODDDIIEEEE!!! (wasn’t it cold out?)
First Trayvon ran away. (not scary)
No, wait, he glowered menacingly (meh? Not quite)
CIRCLED THE CAR, REACHING FOR HIS WAIST BAND! (PERFECT!)
Then skipped away, definitely not in fear. (?!?!?!? and two steps back)
First he knocked. (not scary)
Then he kicked in the door and charged! (Ooo!! but wait, how is the body outside)
Kicked in the door and REACHED FOR HIS HOODIE POCKETS! (gaining on it…)
Then took a step inside. (perfect)
All we are missing is a verbal threat of some kind. (give the witnesses a minute).
:shrug: Not that it matters, though. In this particular case, the door got kicked in, and the intruder stepped inside, having been (witnessed as such) told to leave. Dude wants to get his gun to check the door, fine. Odd, but hardly murder worthy. Shouldn’t be prosecuted, but I wouldn’t be surprised that the scenario starts getting death threats to Mike’s imagery above “I’LL KILL YOU AND HAVE HER ALL TO MYSELF!” or “IF I CAN’T HAVE HER, NO ONE WILL!” or “YOUR GONNA DIE TONIGHT, MOTHER…”… oh… wait….
Mike,
If I have mistaken your line drawing for a piece of creative purple prose expressing your own thoughts on the matter, then here’s my mea culpa by return :)
If we are to guess at the line to be taken by the defence, then what you quote of O’Neill seems to indicate that ‘wild charging at’ is not something that he wishes to assert as justification. I’ve gone into good reasons for that already.
“Thought he might be reaching for a gun/weapon” seems to work quite well for cops that shoot unarmed people, so maybe it would work for Pinkerton.
.
Funny story:
A few years ago I was visiting some friends who had moved to a new place. It was my first time in the area. I went out on an errand and returned later.
I walked in through the unlocked door, through the lobby and into the kitchen. There was a bunch of complete strangers sitting around the table in my friends’ kitchen.
A number of factors probably contributed to me not being shot dead.
– Even before they and I contemplated each other whilst thinking “WTF??”, I already had sensed something ‘different’ about the coats and boots in the lobby – so I was very fast to say “I thought I was in ‘s house!”. Naming the friend was important so that they might recognize it. It would not look like I was making up an excuse for being discovered in their house.
– I don’t conform in appearance to – guy/hulking/threat. I’m more “Hey sugar – you just come right in and take a seat” – though I say so myself. Nevertheless, even women just knocking on doors have been shot dead. My not being ‘of color’ might help me.
– I don’t recall motioning towards my waistband. I was more motioning towards my ZOMG mouth.
– The owner of the row house next door to my friend might not have had a gun
It was dark. Their house was in the middle of a set of cloned row houses that looked the same even in broad daylight. This would have been the second time ever that I had entered their house.
If I had been shot dead, the shooter might have had two options:
1) OK. I overreacted. I f*cked up.
2) She looked like she was going to attack. She looked like she was on drugs or something. She seemed to be reaching for a weapon. I believed that myself and/or my family might have been seriously injured or worse. I had only a fraction of a second to respond.
(2) is not impossible as being plausibly supported – in a general environment. An investigation and possible prosecution would revolve around our respective histories. Witnesses could be important, but if they consisted only of his close family then their statements might possibly be suspect – particularly if my history revealed only my sweet gentle nature.
.
If your quote of O’Neill is a guide, then the question may revolve around the reasonability of an asserted belief that Green was reaching for a weapon.
We don’t know anything about their respective histories with regard to violence. We do have an indication that Green directed blows at objects rather than available people when frustrated – and that Pinkerton had notice of this.
We just don’t know. Either of both of them could have negative indications in their histories. Presumably any such will all come out in time.
It was interesting that in the case of a fatal shooting in Florida, a SYG culture seemed to be at the root of He Who Shall Not Be NameZed not being tested for substances/booze on the night. I wonder if Pinkerton was tested. Presumably the dead body was tested as part of the autopsy.
.
Anyhoo…Happy New Year to all.
I regret to inform you all that I have not resolved to pay less attention to detail in 2014 ;)
Man punches holes into walls of someone’s home; clear evidence of potential for murderous behavior; returns and kicks in door at 2 am.
Time for him to die before someone else dies. End of story. Sorry. Forget details. Time for one to die when one busts into another person’s home.
Same story for knockout game. Time to die. Same story for wannabe bad boys who jump pudgy neighborhood patrols. Time to die. Then we can live in peace. Sorry. Cull the herd. Make them too afraid.
“Man punches holes into walls of someone’s home; clear evidence of potential for murderous behavior; returns and kicks in door at 2 am. ” ::snerk:: I think you and ‘clear evidence’ need to have a sit down. Temper, at best.
” Same story for wannabe bad boys who jump pudgy neighborhood patrols. ” — at the time, Zimmerman wasn’t pudgy. Or on patrol.
Details, details. Cull the herd.
“Details, details. Cull the herd.” —- You know you are IN the herd, right? Its the details that separate man from animal.
Culling the herd with reasonable frequency and reason allows mental masturbators to continue posting useless comments and other such things in peace.
My mistake, I didn’t realize I was disturbing you. Carry on.
So, you’re enjoying this.
I’m with freddiemac. Man busts down door, then homeowner has every right & then some to shoot him for his efforts.
Carrying a firearm increases your risk of being shot – http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
Only in America, where stupid runs deep,is reason and common sense ignored……..
well, yes. Just today 5 punks carrying guns tried to rob a popular convenience store in Dallas, Texas. One of them was shot twice! He was found a block away, abandoned by his “brothers.”
We don’t track firearms very well. That is the problem.
We don’t -want- to track fire arms. That is the other problem.
Dear 1735099a:
Surely you understand that correlation is not causation. Driving greatly increases one’s risk of being in a car accident, but it does not cause them. Most people die in bed, but mattresses are not lethal.
“Only in America, where stupid runs deep,is reason and common sense ignored…….. ”
Editors who dream up catchy but misleading headlines to attract eyeballs should be slapped upside the head. They feed stupid.
The story is some journalist’s summary of a far more detailed study. The headline is some editor’s brain-fart.
There is no finding in the study that carriers are magically more likely to be shot. The gun, in itself, is not the cause.
.
Extracts:
“….analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn’t, Branas speculates”
They do appear to have gone to the trouble of considering factors such as socioeconomic status. Intuition might lead us to assume that this would be a factor, but the study could not bear this out. It was not that the shot lived in more dangerous backgrounds than did very similar personal profiles that were not shot. This left them with a mystery that they can not explain from the survey data.
.
Could it be that carrying can lead people to be less cautious – and therefore more likely to find themselves in a situation?
This seems to be a reason for Neighborhood Watch to request volunteers not to carry. That feels like “reason and common sense” being employed by NW.
This would not apply in the case of He Who Shall Not Be NamZed, of course. All throughout a trailing, a being_approached, a menacing being_circled, a not_really_following_into_a_dark_place and a being_come_at — he had completely forgotten that he had a gun – and was only reminded of it in the last second by someone’s hand reaching around behind his hip to grab it.
http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/03/study-shows-concealed-carry-laws-result-in-fewer-murders/
Actually, in states with concealed-carry laws there are far fewer attacks, involving guns or other forms of assault, on law-abiding citizens than in those without them. The reason why is pretty clear. In places such as Chicago the only private citizens with a weapon would most likely be felons or ones with felonious intents. If you play the knockout game in Colorado or Texas, you might get shot, which is why that is not a popular game in these states.
In other news:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/sns-rt-us-usa-florida-shooting-20140113,0,3095171.story
or
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-stand-your-ground-blind-shooting-20140110,0,317080.story
I like that second one, dude shot the guy that went on a beer run for him. I am confident he was terrified for his life from his drinkin’ pal.
Remember a yearish ago when I said the Zimmerman trial would have some unfortunate side effects? More coming.
Hmm is anyone else having problems with the pictures on this blog loading?
I’m trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
In April of 2012, Victor was attacked and assaulted inside the home he shared with his girlfriend of nine years. Victor’s jaw was broken by his assailant. Fearing for his life Victor shot his assailant one time in self-defense. His assailant died instantly. In May 2014, Victor was wrongfully convicted of 2nd degree murder in Anne Arundel County Maryland. Victor is not a violent person. Victor never had a criminal record and he had worked for NSA for twenty-two years with the highest security clearance. Following Victor’s trial, Anne Arundel County’s acting state’s attorney issued false statements regarding the events of April 5, 2012, further slandering Victor and defaming his character to the media. The media never spoke to the defendant’s family to hear what they had to say.
The very public Pinkerton and Walker trials were held after Victor’s sequestered trial. Incredibly Pinkerton, who shot twice and had never been physically attacked, and Walker, who shot three times and had never been physically attacked, both claimed self-defense and both were acquitted. There has been a blatant violation of Victor’s rights and due process at the hands of Anne Arundel County and its current state prosecutor’s office. An official nineteen page complaint was filed with the Grievance Commission however; after determining a ballpark figure of twenty ethical violations and several criminal violations, the commission has suddenly decided to stay the complaint and wait for the special court of appeals to make a ruling on Victor’s case.
Interestingly enough, it is an election year and the “acting” wants the power very badly. If we could only get the truth to the media.
There is a 19 page Grievance Complaint against the Acting States Attorney – includes 416 pages of documented proof of 21 ethical violations in this case. The acting Anne Arundel County States Attorney and her mother, have been friends with the plaintiff’s family for over 30 years. She should have recused herself from this case. Actng Anne Arundel County States Attorney requested a “DNA” judge – when Victor Harper called 911 to report the incident. There was no need for DNA. There are no DNA judges. The judge who presided was a family law judge, her husband donated money for the acting States Attorney’s campaign and he works for the States of Attorney.