Guy shoots anther guy, then bludgeons him to death, served 3 1/2 years

OK, it may have escaped your attention, but Oscar Pistorius served one year, he was released a week or two ago.

Justice is not meant to be just, its purpose is to scare the common underprivilegued man enough so the level of crime stays below an "acceptable" level. Committing a crime and serving time is only loosely correlated. As long as the police can present someone and some conviction of sorts, it's all good.

It's just like burning a witch on the stake. It isn't necessary that you burn the correct witch (indeed, it isn't even necessary that there is a witch at all!) as long as you burn someone -- people will fear the Devil either way, and will continue paying the tenth. Mission accomplished.

That's the last time I cooperate with hostile police though.

Well, luckily, my rebellish nature saved me from making that mistake when they tried to frame me (being entirely innocent, not even knowing the victim). If you cooperate as much as even agreeing to a questioning, you have already lost.

Guy shoots anther guy, then bludgeons him to death, served 3 1/2 years

OK, it may have escaped your attention, but Oscar Pistorius served one year, he was released a week or two ago.

The circumstance is not comparable though.

Oscar Pistorius says he though a buglar was in his house, so it depends whether the jury (or Judge in this case) believes his story. I didn't, i'm surprised anyone believed his story not to mention the judge

I never believed in the capability of a jury system, but then it was a single judge that decided on Oscar Pistorius' case. She believed him, but i (and probably majority of others) don't. So i'm really confused whether a bunch of lay people, with no expertise on legal issues (also with personal prejudices ) or a judge should decide a case. I think a group of 10-15 specially trained judges randomly chosen will be best to decide cases

Their expertise will help them to see through cons artists and the large number will eliminate prejudices and biases

The OP case (fear thy neighbor episode - trutv) was a clear cut situation where someone snapped. The over-kill, which was never necessary was what made me think 3 1/2 was excessively lenient

Justice is not meant to be just, its purpose is to scare the common underprivilegued man enough so the level of crime stays below an "acceptable" level. Committing a crime and serving time is only loosely correlated. As long as the police can present someone and some conviction of sorts, it's all good.

It's just like burning a witch on the stake. It isn't necessary that you burn the correct witch (indeed, it isn't even necessary that there is a witch at all!) as long as you burn someone -- people will fear the Devil either way, and will continue paying the tenth. Mission accomplished.

You can as well say its about who can beat the system

Knowing all police techniques (which you can know by watching many crime/forensic programmes) one can now commit the perfect crime, Just by being so smart

Seriously, I believe all crime documentaries should be banned and police forensic and undercover techniques should be covert

The circumstance is not comparable though. Oscar Pistorius says he though a buglar was in his house, so it depends whether the jury (or Judge in this case) believes his story. I didn't, i'm surprised anyone believed his story not to mention the judge

Right, my bad. Surely he must have mistaken his 50kg model girlfriend for a dangerous burglar who was sitting on the toilet. Which is why he had to fire 4 shots too, just to be sure. Must be for that reason he called his employee instead of paramedics, too.

Not like it would have made any difference for the gunned-down girl, but if you accidentially shoot someone, one would expect you do an emergency call trying to save what you can.

Either way, even for unlawful killing which is not murder, 1 year is ridiculous.

Knowing all police techniques (which you can know by watching many crime/forensic programmes) one can now commit the perfect crime

This is dangerous, since in particular US tv series provide a lot of false information (deliberately, I guess).

But the point is, you can very well get criminalized if you didn't try to commit the perfect crime, if you indeed have nothing to do with the crime at all. The only thing that you can effectively do is follow Rule #1 (which, according to my wife, you learn as the first thing when you study law): No hearing without a lawyer. Not one word. Never, not ever.

Even if you think (or know) that you are innocent, this is not going to save you if you are stupid enough to cooperate. Police are not your friends, and they are not trying to help you or to find out the truth. They are trying to get someone tried. If that's you, it's just as good as any other person. They get promotions based on how many people are tried, not based on how many people are released innocent.

This is dangerous, since in particular US tv series provide a lot of false information (deliberately, I guess).

But the point is, you can very well get criminalized if you didn't try to commit the perfect crime, if you indeed have nothing to do with the crime at all. The only thing that you can effectively do is follow Rule #1 (which, according to my wife, you learn as the first thing when you study law): No hearing without a lawyer. Not one word. Never, not ever.
Even if you think (or know) that you are innocent, this is not going to save you if you are stupid enough to cooperate. Police are not your friends, and they are not trying to help you or to find out the truth. They are trying to get someone tried. If that's you, it's just as good as any other person. They get promotions based on how many people are tried, not based on how many people are released innocent.

QFE.

Most crime dramas I've seen depict the exact opposite of how one should interact with law enforcement (in the US at least). Speaking without a lawyer present, consenting to searches without a warrant, being hostile towards police or otherwise giving them a reason to hassle you, etc. It's like no one in these shows knows or exercises their rights.

This is dangerous, since in particular US tv series provide a lot of false information (deliberately, I guess).

But the point is, you can very well get criminalized if you didn't try to commit the perfect crime, if you indeed have nothing to do with the crime at all. The only thing that you can effectively do is follow Rule #1 (which, according to my wife, you learn as the first thing when you study law): No hearing without a lawyer. Not one word. Never, not ever.
Even if you think (or know) that you are innocent, this is not going to save you if you are stupid enough to cooperate. Police are not your friends, and they are not trying to help you or to find out the truth. They are trying to get someone tried. If that's you, it's just as good as any other person. They get promotions based on how many people are tried, not based on how many people are released innocent.

QFE.

Most crime dramas I've seen depict the exact opposite of how one should interact with law enforcement (in the US at least). Speaking without a lawyer present, consenting to searches without a warrant, being hostile towards police or otherwise giving them a reason to hassle you, etc. It's like no one in these shows knows or exercises their rights.

Police in the US also exercise significant amounts of pressure and intimidation to get people to talk and essentially criminalize themselves before a lawyer ever gets involved. A lot of people crumble under that much stress. By the way, it is not actually legally required for police to give you your Miranda rights (right to a lawyer, right to remain silent, etc) before interrogating you! Yeah. They're only required to give you those rights if they actually want the evidence to be admissible at trial which, you guessed it, doesn't apply in a plea deal situation. I think they can flat out lie to you about what your rights are, and all of these things start adding up horribly under the stress of being in custody or facing charges.

At the end of the day, there are almost no practical limitations on what police can attempt to do in order to coerce you into a confession or plea deal. There are people dying in custody without any consequences to the officers.

Police in the US also exercise significant amounts of pressure and intimidation to get people to talk and essentially criminalize themselves before a lawyer ever gets involved. [...] I think they can flat out lie to you about what your rights are, and all of these things start adding up horribly under the stress of being in custody or facing charges.

Not only in the USA, and they not only can, but will lie to you, not just about your rights. And worse.

The case of Ulvi Kulaç (alleged murderer of a 9 year old girl) was big in media when it turned out that the mentally handicapped man had been pressed into a false confession based only on the testimony of a criminal "witness". Guy spent 10 years in prison until the revision court ruled that he was innocent.

A similar case happened here some 15 or 16 years ago (that was a 11 or 12 year old boy). I refused to undergo a mass screening. Why? Well for one reason because I was innocent, and I don't want to be treated like a criminal when I'm innocent.

I was lucky enough to have the perfect alibi (I had been working in a hospital in Saigon at the time of the murder), so I was pretty sure that no real charges could possibly be pressed against me. Thus, I didn't really risk crumbling under the pressure. But even so, the amount of pressure (or should I say "abuse") was massive.

Sure enough, police did break the law, and they lied about it. The guy in charge denied talking to my neighbour. It's funny how my neighbour got the impression that police asked him whether he had seen me sneak after children. After all, that didn't happen! I'll not go into detail about other things they did (it's long past, and it wouldn't lead anywhere).

On the paper, you are innocent unless there is hard evidence against you, but in reality, they can just do whatever they want and later deny it happened, and that's it. Nothing you can do. The police man bluntly told me at one time: "Well, you have the possibility to prove that you are innocent, and we'll stop".
That's just the point, though... you don't have to prove that you're innocent, and you shouldn't. It's your constitutional right, and it's your duty to defend that right, little as you may.

At the same time, that very same police does next to nothing to catch real criminals. Which is of course not their fault, but the fault of this pest of '68 judges. I can see why police is the way they are, it's out of frustration.
Because whenever police does what they should do, like in the prominent case of Gäfgen, they are punished for it (In that case, the guy had kidnapped and murdered a boy, he was guilty as can be, was caught getting the money and frankly admitted the kidnapping. He refused to tell where the boy -- who was assumed alive -- was to be found. So police came up with some threats, until he led them to the corpse. Police got big abuse for that.). So yeah, I can kind of understand why they're not very motivated risking their lives for nothing. But still... doesn't make it better for you when you're innocent.

Nonetheless, I'm aware that I live in paradise here, comparatively... in the USA you can call yourself kind of lucky if you arrive at the police department alive at all, and if you aren't put in a cell with 15 gang members who beat you up.