March 27, 2020
The UK is really a joke country beyond what you can even believe is real.
This is actually like a parody news item.
A man who killed an armed robber after he turned up at his house demanding money has been jailed for five years.
Patrick Phinn, 49, stabbed Ronald Pattison 17 times at his home in Easterhouse, Glasgow, in September 2018.
The High Court in Glasgow heard that Pattison, who had a knife, had threatened to kill Phinn and his partner.
A fight broke out and Phinn grabbed a knife which he used to stab Pattison.
He was originally charged with murdering the 38-year-old, but a jury found him guilty of the reduced charge of culpable homicide.
Lord Matthews told Phinn: “It is difficult to think of circumstances where provocation is more appropriate than this.
“This was extreme in the circumstances.
“However, the jury was satisfied that you went beyond what was necessary.”
It wasn’t even his knife! The robber brought the knife! And his wife was in the bed with him!
This is literally the most justified killing in all of history.
As I understand this, the court is accepting that it is reasonable that if a man breaks into your home with a knife and you manage to wrestle the knife from him, you’re allowed to stab him.
They’re saying that he should have limited the number of punctures.
He stabbed him 17 times and that was “beyond what was necessary” – how many times would have been within the bounds of what was necessary? 16 time? 9 times? If the judge is saying this, he should be required to say how many stab wounds are reasonable to bring down an adult male, who is 38 and strong and healthy looking.
Of all the stories you hear about the shit that goes on in the UK, this is particularly staggering to me.
What is even the accusation associated with the claim he stabbed him too many times? That he stabbed him too many times out of anger, so it became a crime?
I would like to see if the court documents are available on this case, because I’m fascinated and want to know how this even happens.
For instance: how did they establish the motive as being something other than self-defense?
I suppose the takeaway is that in modern society we are so separated from violence as a rule that we don’t understand how the fight or flight mechanism of the human psyche works. But surely, they could have brought in an expert to testify that when your life is threatened and your brain settles on fight as the method of dealing with the threat, your conscious thoughts shut off and you enter into an animal mode. This is well documented and well understood, it isn’t some kind of mystery.
I mean, I guess in the UK you only serve half your sentence, but imagine being 49-years-old and having to go to prison for two and a half years because someone broke into your house to rob you.
I am just baffled.