UPDATE: 062414, 1230 CST: The Fourth article in this series is now up.
The charges against Matthew Pinkerton have been dropped. From the Maryland Gazette:
A Glen Burnie man was acquitted Friday in the September shooting death of a man he suspected of having an affair with his wife.
Matthew Pinkerton, 35, was on trial for second-degree murder and other charges in the death of Kendall Green, 25, of Glen Burnie.
Circuit Court Judge William C. Mulford II said there was not enough evidence to convict Pinkerton, and dismissed the charges.
To clarify matters, what appears to have happened–the article does not make this clear–is that the charges against Pinkerton were dismissed. Pinkerton was apparently not acquitted, in other words, found not guilty of the charges. There is a significant difference in the process of the similar outcomes. To be acquitted, one much normally endure a complete trial and a jury must render a “not guilty” verdict. In this case it seems that the judge determined that there wasn’t enough evidence to sustain any of the multiple charges against Pinkerton. If this trial followed the normal course of such things, after the prosecution presented its case, the defense asked that the judge dismiss the charges because the prosecution failed to sustain its burden of proof, and that request was obviously granted, likely with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be refiled in the future. If so, the case is over.
There is, however, one additional possibility: the judge might have dismissed prior to the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, so obvious was the prosecution’s lack of evidence, so poorly did the prosecutor observe Maryland state law. If that happened, it is unusual indeed. Prosecutors normally do not bring murder charges absent a very strong case, and judges are normally reluctant to dismiss a murder case before all potential evidence has been heard.
As one might imagine, the Pinkertons are relieved, though doubtless, much, much poorer for many years to come:
Matthew Pinkerton is delighted with the court’s decision,’ defense attorney Peter O’Neill said.
‘We believe the court’s decision was well-reasoned and a correct reflection of what should have happened in this case as it pertains to the witness statements presented in this matter.
I’ll reiterate some of my prior observations about this case shortly, but as early as September of 2013, reasonable observers could have seen this outcome on the horizon. The Capital Gazette reported:
A Glen Burnie man acted in self-defense when he shot and killed another man he suspected of having an affair with his wife, his attorney said Monday [09-17-13].
At a bail hearing for Matthew Pinkerton, 34, attorney Peter O’Neill said the victim, Kendall Green, broke into Pinkerton’s home on Arbor Drive just before 2 a.m. Sunday after being told repeatedly to leave.
Green, also of Glen Burnie, acted aggressively and motioned toward his waistband as if he had a weapon, O’Neill said.
Pinkerton shot Green once in the chest from 10 to 15 feet away, but Green continued to advance toward him, his wife Jessica and two friends who were at the house, O’Neill said. That’s when Pinkerton shot him again. He died at the scene.
‘This is clearly self-defense,’ O’Neill said.
Not only did the trial judge come to the inescapable conclusion that Pinkerton acted in lawful self-defense under Maryland law, a separate judge expressed quite remarkable reservations about the case at an early stage.
Pinkerton was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and use of a firearm in a felony or violent crime.
The state argued that Pinkerton could have called 911.
District Court Judge Jonas Legum reduced Pinkerton’s bond from $1.5 million to $250,000.
It is not unusual for a judge to reduce a high bond upon being given evidence that a defendant is not a flight risk and has long-standing ties to the community. What is unusual is for a judge to reduce a bond that much. Such a dramatic reduction suggests the judge understood that the initial bond was inherently unreasonable. He likely also understood that the prosecution was engaging in blatant “charge stacking.” Charge stacking occurs when a prosecutor charges a defendant with every possible charge a judge will allow them to get away with in the hope that a jury will throw them a bone and convict on something–anything.
Such was the case in the George Zimmerman trial, when that remarkably corrupt prosecution team, just before jury deliberations, tried to get the judge to allow Zimmerman to be charged with child abuse! Even the ethically challenged and inept judge in that case–Debra Nelson–wouldn’t go for such an absurd charge-stacking attempt.
This, however, foreshadowed the eventual dismissal of all charges:
Legum said he finds it ‘amazing’ that the statement of probable cause against Pinkerton is only two pages long, and included only one sentence about whether or not Green had a weapon.
What the judge was saying–and keep in mind judges seldom, if ever, makes such statements for public consumption; to do so might prejudice the outcome of a case–was the case should never have been filed. It’s not unusual for a judge, in chambers with both parties, to tell a prosecutor his case is damned weak and he’d better have more and better evidence before trial, but for a judge to say, from the bench, on the record, that he’s amazed the PC statement is so short essentially damned the case before it was heard, and rightfully so.
Why is length important? In a charging affidavit, a prosecutor must not only lay out all of the facts, he must identify each and every element of the crimes being charged, and explain clearly and convincingly how the defendant’s actions fulfilled each and every element of every crime. A competent affidavit could easily be two-three pages long for each of the three separate major felonies thrown at Pinkerton. In effect, District Judge Judge Legum–in September of 2013–was saying that the evidence just wasn’t there. In June of 2014, Trial Judge Mulford agreed.
I began covering this case on December 26, 2013 with The Pinkerton Case: Be Glad You Don’t Live In Maryland. As I noted then, this was not a “stand your ground” case, and provided the primary Maryland statutes involved.
The prosecutor, from the beginning, brought charges under the utterly lunatic theory that Pinkerton–and by extension, everyone living in Maryland–has no right to keep and bear arms as they choose in their own home, and that when a violent intruder breaks in their door at 2 AM and charges them, every citizen has a duty to try to call 911 as they are being attacked. In addition, the mere act of arming oneself to answer an unexpected 2AM knock on the door is somehow inherently unreasonable and indicative of murderous intent. I wrote:
Charging Pinkerton under this statute would seem to suggest that the prosecutor does not respect the Constitution as interpreted in Heller, which clearly allows one to carry or otherwise handle firearms on their own property, and surely within their own home. The prosecutor’s theory–such as it is–is clearly in violation of the Second Amendment.
In The Pinkerton Case II: Another Backward Case (12-30-13), I wrote:
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.
As it turns out, the defense argued that Pinkerton, while in Korea on active duty with the Air Force, did suspect that his wife was having an affair with Green. No doubt they brought this up as a means of diminishing any possible effectiveness such an argument might have for the prosecution, and as it turned out, it was apparently not a meaningful issue in the case.
What was meaningful was that in dismissing the case, the trial judge obviously found that the prosecution did not, in fact, meet its burden of fulfilling every element of the three major felonies charged. I suspect he also understood the fundamental underlying issues, issues that properly considered would have prevented any ethical prosecutor from bringing charges:
(1) Citizens have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms as they choose on their own property, and surely within the walls of their own home.
(2) It is inherently reasonable to arm oneself before answering an unexpected 2 AM knock on the door.
(3) Refusing entry to a hostile, raging unwanted suitor of one’s wife, it is reasonable to believe that when he kicks in the locked door and charges you, he intends to cause serious bodily harm to you or your wife.
(4) Seeing that attacker reaching for his waistband as he attacks, it is reasonable to believe–particularly given the circumstances–he is reaching for a weapon, even if, in the mere seconds available for observation, no actual weapon is seen.
(5) It is entirely reasonable to believe that, as a crazed attacker is charging you within your own home at 2 AM after kicking in your front door, that it is impossible–indeed, dangerous–not only to call 911, it is impossible for the 911 operator to answer, it is impossible for the 911 operator to send police officers to save you, and it is impossible for them to arrive in time to prevent the attacker from harming you or your wife.
For those interested in a more in-depth analysis of these issues, take the link to the second Pinkerton article. Essentially, the prosecution, in bringing charges against Pinkerton, was arguing that no citizen of Maryland is secure in their home against violent intruders, and that should they dare to try to defend themselves or their families within the walls of their own home, they would be prosecuted for murder should they be unfortunate enough to be the last person standing.
Fortunately, the judge was willing to fairly apply the Constitution, Maryland law, and the general principles of the law of self-defense. It could easily have gone the other way and Matthew Pinkerton–any citizen of Maryland–could be a convicted felon, looking at decades behind bars. There is, in fact, nothing from keeping these prosecutors, or any Maryland prosecutor, from filing such outrageous charges in the future.
The primary prosecutors in this case were special prosecutor Ronald Naditch and Assistant State’s Attorney Brian Marsh.
While this is a fortunate outcome for Pinkerton and his family–and for justice–it is a costly, Pyrrhic victory. Pinkerton’s Air Force career has been on hold for more than a year. It is entirely possible his future promotion possibilities are doomed. The charges should have never been brought, yes, but in the military, one must advance, and on schedule, or a career is usually out of the question. Missed opportunities may often never be regained. In addition, he has more than a year of legal bills to somehow pay on the salary of a NCO. As a result, he and his family may never own a home, may never enjoy a new car, and may spend much of the most productive years of their lives struggling for mere survival while paying legal bills.
And more, he and his family have had to endure the damaging psychological and social stresses of the charges. For the innocent, the process is the punishment, and few are ever whole again. Though he was clearly acting within the law, there are people that will always believe Pinkerton guilty, and might even be tempted to mete out what they believe to be justice. Pinkerton would be wise to move as far away from Maryland as possible, as soon as possible, preferably to a state more inclined to honor the Constitution.
For Naditch and March, there is, usually, little or no downside to bringing such unreasonable, abusive charges. They cannot be sued, and they cannot be prosecuted. They could theoretically face ethics charges under the rules of the Maryland bar, but that’s as likely as Lois Lerner’s IRS e-mails suddenly appearing.
Unless citizens never let them forget it, unless citizens from this day forth treat Naditch and March as the legal and social pariahs they deserve to be, what reason do they have to avoid persecuting the innocent in the future? Otherwise, for irretrievably damaging the lives of the Pinkertons, for holding the liberties of citizens of Maryland and the principle of self-defense in jeopardy for more than a year, they will face no punishment except that their own conscience’s impose. That will likely be slight punishment indeed.
Final Issue: Kendall Green was black. I did not know that as I wrote the first two articles in this series, and even if I had, I knew no reason why his race, or Pinkerton’s had anything to do with the substantial constitutional issues in this case. I learned it only recently due to a commenter’s suggestion.
A May 29 Capital Gazzette article suggested that the prosecution wanted to make race an issue, apparently to argue that Pinkerton used “a racial slur” in telling Green that he wasn’t welcome and to leave, and that somehow, this gave Green legal, even moral, grounds to forcibly enter Pinkerton’s home and attack him, while simultaneously restraining Pinkerton from defending himself or his family.
I don’t know if this was allowed at trial. If so, it apparently had no effect, or the judge dismissed the abusive charges before it could be heard. While race can potentially have some bearing on such cases, I’ve yet to find anything to suggest that it did in this case. Put Green in his home and Pinkerton on Green’s doorstep at 2 AM, and it should have made no difference to the law, which worked in this case, but at great cost to the Pinkertons and to liberty.
While the unnecessary death of any man is tragic and to be lamented, Kendall Green, sadly, made bad choices that were the direct cause of his death. Had the prosecution been humane, competent, and sufficiently ethical to understand that, all would have been better served.
UPDATE, 062114, 1135 CST: Welcome to Bearing Arms readers.
UPDATE, 062114 1155 CST: The Baltimore Sun has provided a bit of additional detail:
Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge William C. Mulford II ruled that prosecutors had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Matthew Pinkerton was guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter in the September shooting death of Kendall Green.
Mulford’s ruling came at the conclusion of the prosecution, before Pinkerton’s attorneys launched their defense. [skip]
Defense attorney Peter O’Neill argued Pinkerton was defending his home, his friends and wife who were inside. At the end of the prosecution’s case Friday, O’Neill filed a motion asking the judge to declare the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. Mulford agreed.
In cases like this, Judges generally know from the beginning that the prosecution doesn’t have a case, but allow the prosecution to present their case. This is wise and necessary. It allows the system to work as intended, and gives the prosecutors the opportunity to present all of their evidence. It’s always possible they have more and better evidence than their charging documentation and pre-trial motions reveal, or that they might be able to present the evidence they have more effectively.
However, for a judge to dismiss as Judge Mulford did, it must have been painfully obvious that the prosecution’s case did not meet minimal standards of probable cause. In other words, even a rookie police officer should have known not to bring charges in the Pinkerton case. The use of a weapon in a violent felony charge would have been rendered moot by the dismissal of the violent felonies charged.
Defense attorneys routinely ask judges to dismiss charges before beginning their defense. To do otherwise would be malpractice. What is relatively rare is for judges to grant that motion. This is so because prosecutors are normally careful not to charge weak cases. In this case, it would appear there was no case under Maryland law, which suggests a clear political/personal motivation for the charges
As I earlier noted, Pinkerton will now have to see if a continued career in the Air Force is possible:
Pinkerton, who had been out on bail, will now seek to revive his career as an Air Force sergeant, O’Neill said. Once Pinkerton was charged, his security clearance was suspended, O’Neill said.
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.
It’s nice to know some people remember we have a Constitution.
Do the Pinkertons not have the option to file a civil case for malicious prosecution against the two clearly either incompetent or malicious individuals who prosecuted this case?
Not a lawyer, but look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
The short version? No, you can’t sue the government, no matter what, unless you have decades and millions to spend on legal fees, and even then the courts at any and all levels will with about 98% certainly declare, “no, taxpayer peasant, you don’t have any rights that we are bound to respect.”
“The state argued that Pinkerton could have called 991.” Yes because 911 responded so quickly and effectively in all those school shootings.
Bad apostrophe! (I won’t say where, as you might not do a full proofreading if I do.)
Bugger it all, P. M. old chap, you really got that Yank that time. Glad to see the transported on top, bugger it. Now I must go pick some nits, bugger it all.
Reblogged this on Brittius.
I would like to say that your writings kept me going and gave me hope. Truly professional. Thank you! Also wanted to add that Anne Leitess is ultimately responsible for this mess, she was the one who used the Grand Jury as her puppets to force an indictment and push this case forward. She is unethical and wasn’t even elected to the position of states attorney but she is working on getting officially elected. Leitess will not get my vote and doesn’t deserve any in my opinion.
The only person who can give the full story will never have a chance to because he murdered!! Today’s justice system is a joke. How can you let a murder walk around free?? The true victim in this all is Kendall. And he will have a chance to speak his side. RIP Kendall!
You don’t break into someone’s house unless you have intent to cause harm. In the military we are trained to properly use deadly force. One of the tools we use for the use of deadly force is the deadly force tiangle. Which is capability opportunity and intent. When he broke in he showed capability and the opportunity when he kept charging after he was told to stop along with reaching for his waist he showed intent to kill. Pinkerton acted correctly and rationally in the situation.
Ms O’Brien, you either are unfamiliar with the definition of murder, in which case the use of a dictionary of the English language for a basic definition may help, or you are willfully misusing the word as a derogatory against Sergeant Pinkerton by essentially continuing to accuse him of guilt in a case that has been to trial and the prosecutions’ case found to be without merit. In the latter case, you do both yourself and our country a disservice by denigrating a member of our armed services who was, clearly, the victim of malicious prosecutors. I sincerely hope that your opinion is not simply informed by racial prejudice.
Is your defense of the unfortunate Mr. Kendall based solely on his race? He demonstrated intent to harm, and suffered for it. You’re black, I presume? Does this mean that no black anywhere ever has done anything that might have resulted in someone being forced to defend their home and/or family?
In most sane states in this great nation, breaking into someone’s home at 2AM, drunk, angry, and belligerent, constitutes more than sufficient grounds for prima facie evidence of mortal fear, justifying the use of deadly force in self-defense.
“That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook.” – 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)
Thank You for your service to our country Mr.Pinkerton.
Your comment only proves your ignorance. You could probably use a good bump in the head. I am sorry a coward, i mean man lost his life but when a door is kicked in at 2a.m. one gets put down. Idiot
Justice was NOT served period. NO ONE knows all the details because the person who knows what happen isn’t here to give his side. He was shot and it was a “Kill Shot” this system is a joke!
Kick down my door and I’ll assume you have violent intent and my life is in danger. It’s not a difficult concept to understand.
Forcibly enter another’s dwelling, and it’s entirely reasonable for the persons whose home you are invading by force to fear for their lives.
This isn’t rocket science. Are you trolling? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
“[A]ll the details” are not necessary to reach both an informed and reasonable decision. Regardless of the absence of Mr Green, sufficient evidence clearly was available for the judge to determine that the heinous crimes with which SSgt Pinkerton was charged were not supported by the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Dear Former Gi Joe:
Thanks for your comment and welcome to SMM. You’re exactly right.
Au contraire. The entire Pinkerton family was present when the decedent forcibly broke into their house and attacked the homeowner.
No, just … NO!
If you had actually bothered to read the darn thing, you would have had quite a clear and thorough explanation over WHY Mr. Pinkerton was innocent and WHY the case should NEVER have been filed against him in the first place.
I should not have to repeat what this article has so clearly established; it is incumbent upon YOU to READ IT and, more importantly, UNDERSTAND IT.
But, just in case reading such a thorough article is too much for your pea brain to handle, here’s a few “CliffsNotes” to summarize the basic points:
1. Mr. Pinkerton was proven, perhaps unintentionally and by no less than the PROSECUTION, that HE WAS ACTING PURSUANT TO THE LAW when he used deadly force in self defense!
2. If the prosecution could not prove that Mr. Pinkerton had broken any law, then the prosecution does not have a case! Because guilt must be proven while innocence is presumed, the fact that there was no case to establish guilt means that Mr. Pinkerton gets off the hook!
3. So obvious was it to the judge that the prosecution had absolutely NOTHING that he approved the defense’s motion for dismissal RIGHT THEN AND THERE! That NEVER happens unless the prosecution idiotically tried to push a case that never had any legal grounds to begin with!
Therefore, I am forced to conclude that you’re certifiably a dolt on the internet, as if we don’t have enough of them already.
My reason for calling you that is because your post makes that obvious about you.
Congratulations! Don’t you feel all SPECIAL now?
It’s plea deals that I blame.
This seems to be getting more common. Prosecutors slap on the worst possible charges in the hope of saving themselves the trouble of doing some work.
A murder charge was crazy in the circumstances.
What happened seems more like Manslaughter to me.
It was an unnecessary death – and aggravated by the Pinkertons lying, going on what we know of the details.
Here we go again.
“Pinkerton shot Green once in the chest from 10 to 15 feet away, but Green continued to advance toward him, his wife Jessica and two friends who were at the house, O’Neill said. That’s when Pinkerton shot him again. He died at the scene.”
Right. Green is CHARGING!!
At a run, he would be going at over 14 feet per second.
Just jogging, which sounds way more relaxed than charging, he’d be going at about 9 feet per second.
Charging ….. lets say 12 feet per second.
If he’s charging for just a single second, Pinkerton is standing 12 plus 10 to 15 feet away from where the charge started. 22 to 27 feet away
If he’s charging for 2 seconds, Pinkerton was about 34 to 39 feet away. Maybe he climbed out a window and shot Green from there?
After the first shot (from an elephant gun that stopped his CHARGE dead in its tracks, he takes a number of steps forward before the second shot. Maybe he covered another 6 feet?
He’s 28 to 33 feet away from where he started the charge if he charged for 1 second.
He’s 40 to 45 feet away from where he started the charge if he charged for 2 seconds.
Then there’s some more feet between where the charge started and where he ended up on the ground outside. 3 to 5 feet. 4?
According to the Pinkertons, the second shot knock him backwards.
Say a minimum of 42 feet total for 1 second charge and being shot at 10 foot range
Up to 59 feet for a 2 second charge and being shot at 15 foot range.
Pinkertons live in a bowling alley? Amazing. From Google Street View, that house looks way smaller than that.
Knocked him backwards – out the door.
One shot in the chest stops him dead, but he moves forward again.
Another shot.
Green gets blown backwards a minimum of about 42 feet and maybe up to 59 feet.
That was some sucker of a second shot. That’s some deceptively large house.
Admittedly for that second shot he might not have been full-on charging, but he was moving against the bullet.
Maybe Pinkerton had an elephant gun? What a man! The recoil from those things can be massive.
.
How about this?
Pinkerton is partying with bro and the two wives. Alcohol?
Knock, knock on the door.
Go to see who that is.
Oh FFS it’s that Green guy.
Get off my lawn!!
Slam the door.
Green kicks in the door. He has a history of being violent to buildings.
Pinkerton gets real butt hurt and shoots him.
.
“(3) Refusing entry to a hostile, raging unwanted suitor of one’s wife, it is reasonable to believe that when he kicks in the locked door and charges you, he intends to cause serious bodily harm to you or your wife.
..
(5) It is entirely reasonable to believe that, as a crazed attacker is charging you within your own home at 2 AM after kicking in your front door, ….
It’s not at all reasonable in *all* of the circumstances.
Pinkerton and Green had a prior confrontation. In that, Green was obviously very emotional. He got so worked up that he punched…… a wall.
If Pinkerton believed that Green was capable of violence against him or his wife – based on his experience of Green in a highly emotional state- then he would have been wise to call 911 as soon as he realised that Green had arrived outside his front door.
.
.
(4) Seeing that attacker reaching for his waistband as he attacks, it is reasonable to believe–particularly given the circumstances–he is reaching for a weapon, even if, in the mere seconds available for observation, no actual weapon is seen.
Oh-oh!
Since Mr Z has already been mentioned, I’ll drag him in here.
Z describes how when he came face to face with Martin, he put his hand to his waistband.
FFS! Martin is not a local hood breaking into the complex. He’s on his way home. Some weirdo tails him from a truck and eventually they are face to face.
“Why are you following me?”
“What are you doing around here?”
The weirdo puts his hand to his waistband.
“(4) Seeing that weirdo reaching for his waistband as he refuses to explain why he is following, it is reasonable to believe–particularly given the circumstances–he is reaching for a weapon, even if, in the mere seconds available for observation, no actual weapon is seen.”
So Martin attacked Mr Z in justifiable self-defense.
.
Both cases smell of the shooter being inept.
Both smell of manslaughter. Death due to SNAFU.
Bearing arms may be a right, but all rights go hand in hand with responsibilities.
By all accounts, the individual was inside the residence, unwanted, uninvited, and had forced his way there.
That is a huge Frickin’ ‘no no’. Is it all suspect? Sure. But not more so than an estranged relationship forcing his way into a residence. The guy was shot with reasonable understanding that he was where he shouldn’t have been at a MOST awkward time of the day. An uninvited violent estranged trespasser whom has forced his way into your home doesn’t need the courtesy of being asked to wait for authorities to sort it all out.
Why do you do this to yourself, Sling?
You are a classic example of missing the forest for the trees. All that really matters is that Green forcibly broke into the house at 2AM, which on its own, all by itself, and regardless of anything else, legally constitutes reasonable mortal fear, thereby justifying the use of deadly force in self-defense.
It doesn’t matter how close Green was at the first shot, nor at the second. Green had already forced himself inside a locked dwelling.
And by the way: yet again, having an imprecise memory of minor details – something utterly common after a mortal-fear incident – does not automatically constitute lying, no matter how many fantastical scenarios you can concoct.
(But I agree about the plea deals. Over-charging just to get a plea deal makes a mockery of the system.)
Anyone busting in my door for ANY reason at 2:00am is getting shot. Green had NO right to enter this home for any reason. Kicking in the door is an act of violence in itself. Think how scared you would be if someone were to kick in your door and threaten your family. If you don’t believe this, then when someone kicks in your door in the middle of the night, please share the details of how you handled it and what the outcome was. I know, I lost 5 family members to a brutal home invasion 2011 and we are still reliving it every year waiting for justice. Every November-December we wait to hear if there will be a trial or will it be postpone. So preach from your pulpit until it happens to you or your family. It can happen to anyone, we were just an everyday family. This kind of stuff is only suppose to happen in movies…But it happened to us. It will never happen again I assure you.
Mr. McDaniel, first I would like to personally thank you for spending hours upon end to research this case and report facts! Matthew Pinkerton is an American soldier and a fine man to boot! How do I know? I’m his stepfather in Arkansas. I’ve been silent thru-out this ordeal. It has taken a tole on the entire family. Yellow Dog journalism has twisted this case with so many nonfactual statements that it has made me sick to my stomach. I’m now a school teacher. During my younger years I spent them in the United States Marine Corps. I was at Beirut, Lebanon on the early morning of 10/23/1983 when terrorism struck American. I was base on a flat top and of this day I wear hearing aids due to the bombing and the artillery fire once we hit the beachhead. Matt is a fine man, level headed, great father and husband and was put in a situation that he never suspected himself to be put in. I’ve watched this father teach his sons how to shoot with the upmost respect of a firearm and the dangers of knowing what you’re shooting at. I, personally feel for the Green family, but I’m at awe at just how much the media can quote untrue facts that turns the public’s opinion on any topic. That’s how the journalists make a name for themselves and sell papers. America needs to understand that what they read and here isn’t always the truth. Just like me, In 1983, under President Ronald Reagan, we weren’t supposed to be in Beirut. Couldn’t lock and load under our Commander in Chiefs orders. Yet, that left us as sitting ducks. When that suicide bomber changed the world we were ordered off of that flat top and told to lock and load, this wasn’t a drill. Same with Matt, if he hadn’t been locked and loaded he would have been a casualty, one of which I spent relentless hours digging through concrete, through the smell of death, to leave no fallen comrade behind. To send my brothers in arms home to their mommas with a casket draped with a United States flag covering their body, they had paid their dues to their country that they so loved that they voluntarily enlisted to ensure every American of their Constitutional Rights. Same as Matt, he is being dragged through total hell without the entire truth being told. I know the truth. That man, father and soldier would have never pulled a trigger unless he absolutely had to. Now, America, you better thank God that you have more men like Matthew Pinkerton to conserve your American rights to liberty and fairness to all without you being the judge and jury.
My prayer is that our country will unite and support our troops, they go through total hell, trust me I know!
Semper Fi, Raymond Culp
Please excuse the typos in my message. I’m getting older and can’t see the keys as well. Thank you, Raymond Culp
As I stated in my post, I’m a school teacher. That is correct. However, my spell check was turned off and I truly apologize for any typos. Being a teacher, we spend relentless hours typing papers, testing papers, making parental contact, etc. to ensure that your student is receiving the best education possible. Please don’t judge me as a teacher on typos, you have no idea what it’s like to spend hours on a computer to ensure your students best educational intents. Thanks again, Raymond Culp
Dear Raymond Culp:
As a fellow educator, I understand completely. Most people don’t know how difficult it is to write perfectly on the Internet. Thanks for your kind words, your service to our nation–I am also a veteran–and Semper Fidelis indeed.
As I posted before, terrorism started the morning on October 23.1983 at 00:241 hours of the morning. If any of you younger nay sayer’s want to hold my hand and walk thru the valley of death, I don’t want to but I will walk you thru it. You spend the sleepless nights that I do , which I hope that you never endure, and you’ll see what price your freedom to express your opinion has cost this nation, the mothers and fathers, and all of their fellow brothers that had to pack their remains to send home to their families of which, we as band of brothers, truly and honorable respect to give you the freedom that you have to express your opinion. I’ve expressed mine and will say no more.
Semper Fi my brothers, Raymond Culp
Sorry but your assessment of the outcome of the trial: that Pinkerton was not “acquitted” and the charges were dismissed is 100% not correct.
The defense attorney, at the close of the prosecutions case, made a “motion for judgment of acquittal” which was granted and the defendant was found “not guilty”. A not guilty verdict can be handed down by a judge after the close of the prosecutions case, or by a jury at the close of both the prosecution and defense case.
Please get your facts straight before you comment on the law.
Thank you
Dear Karen Smith:
Welcome to SMM and thanks for your comment. If you’ll take the time to carefully read what I wrote, you’ll notice that I used qualifiers such as “apparently,” or “seems,” because, as I made repeatedly clear, the news accounts of the resolution of this case are not clear. Sadly, this is almost always the case when one is working only from news reports rather than trial transcripts and related documents.
I confined my comments to what may have happened, and to how such things are usually done in similar cases. What appears to be the most accurate news account is in my last update from the Baltimore paper, which noted that upon a motion to dismiss by the defense made at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case and before the defense case, the trial judge granted the motion. We still do not know that the dismissal was granted with prejudice–meaning that the case can never be refiled–or not. Since you say you were present in the courtroom, perhaps you could provide that bit of information? And of course, if you have links to more definitive information rather than additional news accounts, I’d be pleased and grateful to have them.
I also explained the general difference between a dismissal and an acquittal, again, making clear that I was not sure precisely what occurred. Some people consider them to be essentially the same thing as they produce essentially the same result for most intents and purposes, but there is a difference, as I explained.
If the judge, as you say, granted a motion for a “judgement of acquittal,” again, I’d love to see a transcript or the related documents. In any case, I hope we can agree that the case is over, the prosecution had no probable cause, and should not, therefore, have brought the charges in the first place.
Finally, may a suggest that you read a bit more carefully before accusing others of doing nothing more, given the best currently available information, than explaining possibilities? I do try to be very careful about clearly differentiating between fact and possibilities. And you are welcome.
I really hate to belabor this point and it is interesting to me that me comments generated so much controversy but:
Mr. O’Neal made a motion for judgment of acquittal
These motions are made at the close of the prosecutions case wherein the defense essentially says that even in “a light most favorable to the state” the state had failed to meet it’s burden the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” and the judge can the Grant the motion and the defendant is acquitted. Once this occurs the case is over, and jeopardy attaches. There is no issue of prejudice. Constitutionally the state is barred under double jeopardy from bringing the case that. My comments are not in any way meant to reflect my opinion or lack there of of the merits of Mr. Pinkerton case. I believe however, that the judge made the correct decision. I suggest that tomorrow you check on Maryland judiciary case search. Put in Mr. Pinkerton’s name and you will find a verdict of not guilty.
Obviously the posters want to read into the judges decision and conclude that the case should’ve never been brought. They may be absolutely correct. My comments are only directed at the correct interpretation of the law.
Motions for judgment of acquittal are defined under the Maryland criminal procedure statute.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment. And I suggest that if you do not agree with me before expressing your disagreement that you actually researched the Maryland Rules and statutes.
Finally, it is very clear this is a very emotionally charged issue for those that are posting remarks on this post. I respect everyone has the right to their “opinion” however again my point was only that this was in fact a “not guilty” finding that was rendered by the judge rather than by the jury. In Maryland judges are the judges of both the law and the facts. They are empowered as such to prevent a case From going to a jury by the acquitting the defendant at the defense motion for judgment of acquittal.
Dear Karen Smith:
Thanks again. I’ll be posting an update no later than Tuesday that deals with this, and related, issues. We certainly agree on the outcome, but as you’ll discover, we were even more right than we knew.
Court System: Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County – Criminal System
Case Number: 02K13001930
Title: State of Maryland vs Matthew Martin Pinkerton
Case Type: IndictmentFiling Date:10/04/2013
Case Status: Closed/Inactive
Case Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
District Case No: 6A00274406
Defendant Information
(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Defendant is displayed)
Name: Pinkerton, Matthew Martin
Race: Caucasian
Sex: MHeight:5’9″Weight:195DOB:04/24/1979
Address: 424 Arbor Drive
City: Glen BurnieState:MDZip Code:21061
Attorney(s) for the Defendant
Name: O’Neill, Esq, Peter S
Appearance Date: 10/15/2013
Practice Name: Murnane & O’Neill
Address: 7425 Balto-Annapolis Blvd
City: Glen BurnieState:MDZip Code:21061
Name: Jezic, Esq, Andrew V
Appearance Date: 05/06/2014
Practice Name: Jezic, Krum & Moyse, LLC
Address: 2730 University Blvd West
City: WheatonState:MDZip Code:20902
Court Scheduling Information
Event Type: Arraignment/Initial AppearanceNotice Date:10/08/2013
Event Date: 10/28/2013Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:10/15/2013
Event Type: Status ConferenceNotice Date:11/22/2013
Event Date: 12/13/2013Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:12/13/2013
Event Type: Chambers ConferenceNotice Date:01/10/2014
Event Date: 01/27/2014Event Time:11:30 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:01/27/2014
Event Type: Postponement HearingNotice Date:01/28/2014
Event Date: 02/10/2014Event Time:11:00 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:02/10/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:01/21/2014
Event Date: 02/11/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:01/28/2014
Event Type: Criminal Motions HearingNotice Date:05/02/2014
Event Date: 05/23/2014Event Time:01:30 PM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:05/23/2014
Event Type: Criminal Motions HearingNotice Date:05/23/2014
Event Date: 06/10/2014Event Time:01:30 PM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:06/10/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:05/27/2014
Event Date: 06/17/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: ContinuedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/18/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: ContinuedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/19/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: ContinuedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/20/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/23/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/24/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:06/20/2014
Charge and Disposition Information
(Each Charge is listed separately. The disposition is listed below the Charge)
Charge No: 1CJIS Code:1 0999Statute Code:CR.2.204
Charge Description: Murder-Second Degree
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:F
Disposition
Plea: Not GuiltyPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Charge No: 2CJIS Code:1 0910Statute Code:CR.2.207.(a)
Charge Description: Manslaughter
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:F
Disposition
Plea: Not GuiltyPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Charge No: 3CJIS Code:1 5299Statute Code:CR.4.204.b
Charge Description: Firearm Use/Felony/Violent Crime
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:M
Disposition
Plea: DO NOT USED ———- No Plea Entered By DefendantPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Charge No: 4CJIS Code:1 5299Statute Code:CR.4.204.b
Charge Description: Firearm Use/Felony/Violent Crime
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:M
Disposition
Plea: DO NOT USED ———- No Plea Entered By DefendantPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Actually the charges were dismissed, which is not a Not guilty verdict or a acquittal. It means the charges should have never been pressed. This is a fact. The words of the judge ” on all charges I DISMISS”.
Court System: Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County – Criminal System
Case Number: 02K13001930
Title: State of Maryland vs Matthew Martin Pinkerton
Case Type: IndictmentFiling Date:10/04/2013
Case Status: Closed/Inactive
Case Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
District Case No: 6A00274406
Defendant Information
(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Defendant is displayed)
Name: Pinkerton, Matthew Martin
Race: Caucasian
Sex: MHeight:5’9″Weight:195DOB:04/24/1979
Address: 424 Arbor Drive
City: Glen BurnieState:MDZip Code:21061
Attorney(s) for the Defendant
Name: O’Neill, Esq, Peter S
Appearance Date: 10/15/2013
Practice Name: Murnane & O’Neill
Address: 7425 Balto-Annapolis Blvd
City: Glen BurnieState:MDZip Code:21061
Name: Jezic, Esq, Andrew V
Appearance Date: 05/06/2014
Practice Name: Jezic, Krum & Moyse, LLC
Address: 2730 University Blvd West
City: WheatonState:MDZip Code:20902
Court Scheduling Information
Event Type: Arraignment/Initial AppearanceNotice Date:10/08/2013
Event Date: 10/28/2013Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:10/15/2013
Event Type: Status ConferenceNotice Date:11/22/2013
Event Date: 12/13/2013Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:12/13/2013
Event Type: Chambers ConferenceNotice Date:01/10/2014
Event Date: 01/27/2014Event Time:11:30 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:01/27/2014
Event Type: Postponement HearingNotice Date:01/28/2014
Event Date: 02/10/2014Event Time:11:00 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:02/10/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:01/21/2014
Event Date: 02/11/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:01/28/2014
Event Type: Criminal Motions HearingNotice Date:05/02/2014
Event Date: 05/23/2014Event Time:01:30 PM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:05/23/2014
Event Type: Criminal Motions HearingNotice Date:05/23/2014
Event Date: 06/10/2014Event Time:01:30 PM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:06/10/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:05/27/2014
Event Date: 06/17/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: ContinuedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/18/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: ContinuedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/19/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: ContinuedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/20/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/23/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/24/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:06/20/2014
Charge and Disposition Information
(Each Charge is listed separately. The disposition is listed below the Charge)
Charge No: 1CJIS Code:1 0999Statute Code:CR.2.204
Charge Description: Murder-Second Degree
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:F
Disposition
Plea: Not GuiltyPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Charge No: 2CJIS Code:1 0910Statute Code:CR.2.207.(a)
Charge Description: Manslaughter
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:F
Disposition
Plea: Not GuiltyPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Charge No: 3CJIS Code:1 5299Statute Code:CR.4.204.b
Charge Description: Firearm Use/Felony/Violent Crime
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:M
Disposition
Plea: DO NOT USED ———- No Plea Entered By DefendantPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Charge No: 4CJIS Code:1 5299Statute Code:CR.4.204.b
Charge Description: Firearm Use/Felony/Violent Crime
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:M
Disposition
Plea: DO NOT USED ———- No Plea Entered By DefendantPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
So u mad Jessica that the truth came out u know just as well as I do
Ms. Smith, I respect your opinion and comments Never once did I say that there was an acquittal . Here we go again, people putting words in another persons mouth that was never said. Get your facts straight before you post again!
Raymond Culp
The ARTICLE stated:
To clarify matters, what appears to have happened–the article does not make this clear–is that the charges against Pinkerton were dismissed. Pinkerton was apparently not acquitted, in other words, found not guilty of the charges. There is a significant difference in the process of the similar outcomes. To be acquitted, one much normally endure a complete trial and a jury must render a “not guilty” verdict. In this case it seems that the judge determined that there wasn’t enough evidence to sustain any of the multiple charges against Pinkerton. If this trial followed the normal course of such things, after the prosecution presented its case, the defense asked that the judge dismiss the charges because the prosecution failed to sustain its burden of proof, and that request was obviously granted, likely with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be refiled in the future. If so, the case is over.
My comment was for the author of the ARTICLE
Not you, who ever you are. If you’re the author, then please reread your article.
Thanks
Because that little commentary on the difference between a dismissal and a not guilty is just incorrect. It’s not my opinion. It’s a fact. Happy to refer you to Maryland annotated code if need be.
Again please refer to the section from the post/article/interpretation for reference.
Oh and ummmmm……he was acquitted
He was found not guilty.
So not sure what your issue is…
My point is he WAS acquitted….the Judge found the defendant not guilty…..I am trying to put the correct words in your mouth….
Troll…Never argue with a troll…Karen Smith is a Troll and loves to drag her opinions out forever. She should have stopped with her first comment and she would have had merit. However, as she kept on and on she became a troll.
Court System: Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County – Criminal System
Case Number: 02K13001930
Title: State of Maryland vs Matthew Martin Pinkerton
Case Type: IndictmentFiling Date:10/04/2013
Case Status: Closed/Inactive
Case Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
District Case No: 6A00274406
Defendant Information
(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Defendant is displayed)
Name: Pinkerton, Matthew Martin
Race: Caucasian
Sex: MHeight:5’9″Weight:195DOB:04/24/1979
Address: 424 Arbor Drive
City: Glen BurnieState:MDZip Code:21061
Attorney(s) for the Defendant
Name: O’Neill, Esq, Peter S
Appearance Date: 10/15/2013
Practice Name: Murnane & O’Neill
Address: 7425 Balto-Annapolis Blvd
City: Glen BurnieState:MDZip Code:21061
Name: Jezic, Esq, Andrew V
Appearance Date: 05/06/2014
Practice Name: Jezic, Krum & Moyse, LLC
Address: 2730 University Blvd West
City: WheatonState:MDZip Code:20902
Court Scheduling Information
Event Type: Arraignment/Initial AppearanceNotice Date:10/08/2013
Event Date: 10/28/2013Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:10/15/2013
Event Type: Status ConferenceNotice Date:11/22/2013
Event Date: 12/13/2013Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:12/13/2013
Event Type: Chambers ConferenceNotice Date:01/10/2014
Event Date: 01/27/2014Event Time:11:30 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:01/27/2014
Event Type: Postponement HearingNotice Date:01/28/2014
Event Date: 02/10/2014Event Time:11:00 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:02/10/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:01/21/2014
Event Date: 02/11/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:01/28/2014
Event Type: Criminal Motions HearingNotice Date:05/02/2014
Event Date: 05/23/2014Event Time:01:30 PM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:05/23/2014
Event Type: Criminal Motions HearingNotice Date:05/23/2014
Event Date: 06/10/2014Event Time:01:30 PM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:06/10/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:05/27/2014
Event Date: 06/17/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: ContinuedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/18/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: ContinuedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/19/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: ContinuedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/20/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Held/ConcludedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/23/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:06/20/2014
Event Type: Criminal Jury TrialNotice Date:
Event Date: 06/24/2014Event Time:09:00 AM
Result: Cancelled/VacatedResult Date:06/20/2014
Charge and Disposition Information
(Each Charge is listed separately. The disposition is listed below the Charge)
Charge No: 1CJIS Code:1 0999Statute Code:CR.2.204
Charge Description: Murder-Second Degree
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:F
Disposition
Plea: Not GuiltyPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Charge No: 2CJIS Code:1 0910Statute Code:CR.2.207.(a)
Charge Description: Manslaughter
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:F
Disposition
Plea: Not GuiltyPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Charge No: 3CJIS Code:1 5299Statute Code:CR.4.204.b
Charge Description: Firearm Use/Felony/Violent Crime
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:M
Disposition
Plea: DO NOT USED ———- No Plea Entered By DefendantPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
Charge No: 4CJIS Code:1 5299Statute Code:CR.4.204.b
Charge Description: Firearm Use/Felony/Violent Crime
Offense Date From: 09/15/2013To:
Arrest Tracking No: 02-0004-96590-1Citation:
Charge Amend No: 0Sentence Version:0Charge Class:M
Disposition
Plea: DO NOT USED ———- No Plea Entered By DefendantPlea Date:06/17/2014
Disposition: AquittedDisposition Date:06/20/2014
U are an idiot .
No Ma’am, you’re not putting words in my mouth. If I had said it I would own up to it. I respect you’re opinion, however, I do not respect the way you’ve responded to me. I will never disrespect you and I don’t see that you are in any way possible to enforce the laws of Maryland. Now, with that being said, “Kiss my southern ass”, respectfully, Raymond Culp
I was at the trial sir. I am sorry you’ve chosen to fight with me over the fact that you want to maintain the person you support was not acquitted when in fact he was….whatever.
Ms. Smith, I’m glad that you were at the trial. That tells me that you are a pure liberalist and if the second amendment, the right to bear arms, didn’t start at the north and spread south that you wouldn’t be even given the chance to sit in that courtroom. However, when you and all the others up there attack my family, you’re attacking me and what I fought to give you the right to do so. My suggestion, back off, leave my family alone with all of your other anti-gun owners, and I hope that I don’t read your obituary due to some crazed lunatic whom chose to take your life away from you before your time. You can thank the Second Amendment for that. Oh, excuse me, did I fail to mention that this amendment started in the North? :)
Semper Fi sister, look up what that means!
Respectfully, Raymond Culp
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo….
Ms. Smith, with that last comment sounds to me like you need to join a circus since it sounds as if you are a parrot!
Raymond Culp
Big tough military man has to use a gun, instead of fighting like a real man! Matthew Pinkerton is a sissy who was afraid of getting his tail kicked. Instead of fighting Kendall like a real man he had to shoot him. Matt knew Kendall. He knew he wanted to fight. He knew Kendall didn’t own a gun. Bottom line it was Matt’s wife’s fault. She told Kendall she was going to leave Matt all along, while he was gone. Then changed her mind last minute. Matt and Kendall had words day’s before both saying they were going to “beat one another’s @#$%” but when Kendall ACTUALLY showed up to fight, Matt shot him. I knew them both. Kendall was a good guy. So was Matt, but Matt always ran his big mouth and could never back it up. Matt knew Kendall had said he was coming over to fight him. Kendall lived in the house for months and it still probably felt like home to him. The whole situation is tragic. I pray for both families and Kendall, RIP man. We miss you. – Jay
Thank you for killing this man.he deserved it.
Even if this is true, the fact that Pinkerton had closed the door on Kendall meant that a fight should have been out of the question.
E.g. suppose I go into a bar, and have words with somebody inside, and then leave. If I return to the bar to resume the quarrel by attacking the other person, and get hurt or killed as a result, then it becomes my fault regardless of whoever started the original argument. This case is even more clear-cut. Pinkerton closed and presumably locked the door after Kendall left, which means Kendall was 100% responsible for resuming any quarrel when he broke in and advanced on the people inside the home.
Dear wlevinson:
Quite right. Under state law, Kendall, the moment he broke into the home, committed burglary–a felony–taking all responsibility for the outcome onto himself. He was shot in the commission of a violent felony, which is only one reason the judge so quickly and forcefully dismissed the case with prejudice.
WHY DON’T YOU START A LETTER-WRITING CAMPAIGN TO HAVE GLEN NEUBAUER REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION? HE’S ONLY 32 AND NEW TO THE JOB. IT MIGHT NOT TAKE A WHOLE LOT TO HAVE HIM FIRED.
If there is not another side to this story, the prosecutor should be reported to Maryland’s legal disciplinary board for knowingly and willfully filing charges he knew to be totally unfounded. If the prosecutor admitted that the decedent had just forced his way into a home though a closed door, and had been within Tueller Drill (21 feet) range of the shooter, and argued nonetheless that the shooter should have called 911 instead of shooting, he is clearly dishonest, not competent to practice law, or both.
http://www.courts.state.md.us/attygrievance/
Dear wlevinson:
There is no second–actually, this would require a third–side. The prosecution admitted that Kendall committed a burglary by breaking into the home, but downplayed that felony, essentially arguing, “so what? It wasn’t that big a burglary and he didn’t damage anything all that much, and he really didn’t intend to steal anything.” That he intended to kill Pinkerton and/or his wife seemed a small matter to the prosecutors. I would not, however, hold my breath waiting for the state bar to act on this one.
Pingback: SMM, The Best Of 2015-ish: The Top 23! | Stately McDaniel Manor