The Pistorius problem

The idea of shoot first, investigate more later seems strange to you only because you are not a serious gun advocate. Guns are a good way to probe for friend or foe, and you don't in any circumstances want to expose yourself to the tiniest risk. Just boom, boom, away. Killed your own? That's just tragic.Otherwise, you would never shoot through a closed door in your house or even leading to the outside. Even when you know where your family is.

I think the question is very interesting and can have many answers.From your initial remarks, I would guess that you think he should have been convicted of something for which the culpability is higher. That's my own opinion.But the conviction was for something like negligent homicide. Johannes Mehserle, who shot Oscar Grant while he was handcuffed, was convicted of something similar because the jury believed that he meant to taser Oscar. Mehserle received a two year sentence. So there is nothing all that surprising about the length of the sentence.Whether or not you think a 5-8 year sentence is appropriate for such a thing might largely depend on deeply held and personal views of crime and punishment. I've seldom seen people change those views during a discussion. I have seen people change their mind when their own loved ones are involved.I think the sentence is appropriate based on what he was convicted for. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.