Matthew Pinkerton was charged by an idiotic Maryland prosecutor for daring to shoot a man who was forcing his way into Pinkerton’s home.

We first wrote about the absurd case against US Air Force Tech Sgt. Matt Pinkerton in early November, when he was charged with murder by Assistant State’s Attorney Glen Neubauer. What was Pinkerton’s crime? Not pausing to dial 9-1-1 after Kendall Green forced is way into Pinkerton’s home at 2:00 AM.

Our friend and Bearing Arms contributor Mike McDaniel has been following the Pinkerton case on his own site, and now reports that charges against Pinkerton have been dismissed by the judge… and that’s no small thing:

…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 refilled 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.

Mike gives the case a very thorough review, pointing out just how absurd the charges were. It isn’t Mike Nifong bad, but it was still an absurd case to bring to trial.

The judge in the case obviously felt that you do have a right to defend your home and family against a belligerent person attempting to invade your home, even in the freedom-hating anti-gun state of Maryland.

Who knew?