Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum
|Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.
Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.
If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.
Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Murder in the Desert
Posted 01 February 2009 - 01:27 PM
Honestly, this isn't a puzzle at all, the answer could be different from man to man. It's a nice question, though!
Posted 15 February 2009 - 02:19 AM
Posted 15 February 2009 - 02:25 AM
I think that is everything.
Posted 06 March 2009 - 10:39 PM
Edited by batman73, 06 March 2009 - 10:40 PM.
Posted 20 May 2009 - 05:20 PM
im unsure as to if this point has been previously added because i dont fancy reading 11 pages at the moment . arguing semantics, C killed C by making A and B hating him. - one answer
some people are calling B the murder and arguing that even tho he lengthened C's life it is irrelivant, if we asume that the poison would have killed C in 1 day and the lack of water killed him after 3 days, does a doctor who kills someone after a year to prevent their imminent death murder him? a man living a week has an opperation where the doctor garentees his death after 2 weeks however allowing him life for a week. in no way can this be classed as murder and i put forward the most logical answer would like in A as the murderer B as the acomplace and C as the initator.
Again, B did not save C because C´s intent was to kill him. (goal:murder [success]) (accidentally saved from something else)
The doctor did save the patient, because the doctor´s goal was to prolongue the patients life and he also asked the patients permission (goal:save [success])
For the B save C try this analogue situation:
A knows C always comes to work at 12:01 and sets up a timed crusher trap
B infects C with a deadly virus that kills in 2 hours [at 11:20]
C calls in sick and misses A´s trap. C dies of the disease at [13:14]
B may have lenghtened C´s life accidentally, but is still the murderer
Posted 21 May 2009 - 04:16 AM
Edited by James8421, 21 May 2009 - 04:17 AM.
Posted 20 September 2009 - 03:19 PM
WHAT???? Come on people. Not ONE of you made mention of the most important 2 facts of the situation!!!
#1 And MOST importantly, #2 did NOT cut the bag to PREVENT #1 from poisoning #3. HE DID IT TO KILL HIM. There was no attempt to save this guy at ALL from EITHER party! Therefore #2 does not get ANY credit for saving #3!!!
#2 HE DID NOT DIE OF POISONING. HE DIED OF THIRST which was a direct result of #2's actions, PERIOD! #1 tried to murder him with Poison. His attempt was unsuccesful due to #2's tactic for murder. You can not say that number 2 SAVED #3's life by cutting a pouch UNLESS HIS INTENTIONS WERE TO SAVE HIM. He did what he did to KILL HIM, and he SUCCEEDED!
#2 is the Murderer, Period. #1 is an Attempted Murderer
Even though A poisoned the water in C's sack, it doesn't mean that A is the murderer. The story says, "Two days later, C died of thirst". It means one thing -- C died because B holed the sack and let all the water flow out of it. Without water, no body can live. As anyone else were saying, A and B should have died ahead of C since only C had the water. The only valid reason to this is that,maybe just maybe, when A knew that B holed the sack, they decided to become partners and left C behind in search for water. Other answers count as valid, but they all have missing points in the explanation.
NOTE: This is only a hypothesis. I'm not concluding that this is definitely the right answer, rather specifying a deeper point of view of the story...
Posted 07 February 2010 - 01:03 PM
The big differene is A failed to do the murder while B succeeded in doing the crime.
If A and B did get out of the desert alive, I think A won't be charged of murder since there would be no evidence because the poisoned water spilled on the sands. There is also no evidence that B committed murder unless they see that B has a cutting tool and the container of C's water was cut. But why would B keep evidences with him if he knows that it can be used against him?
However, if the judge does know the facts that we know, he should charge B with murder and A with attempted murder. A can't be charged of murder because C may or may not have survived even after drinking the water that A has poisoned. No one would know what could have happened so no one would know what kind of crime could have been committed and what kind of punishment should have been given to A. We only know the fact that A attempted to kill C so we can only make judgements based on that fact. But the result of B's action has already happened so it can be judged based on what DID happen.
I also think that while A and B are murderers, C also has his own fault. Water is the most important resource that you should have in the desert so C should have been more careful with his water. The murderer succeeded because C was too careless, I mean, how could A put a poison in the water or B cut the bag of water without C noticing it?
But let's go back to the original question, the question is who was the murderer and not who will be charged of murder or what crime would be charged on A and B. If two murderers try to kill someone, both has the intention of killing, then it doesn't matter who kills that someone first, both of them are still murderers, whatever the method or the outcome of their plans might be. People who knows the story will just see them both as murderers.
Posted 31 July 2010 - 10:07 PM
Posted 04 August 2010 - 10:31 PM
It only said that they carried no water, they may have carried tea, pop, or lemonade.
Actually, since C was the only one with water, and he died from thirst, you would have to conclude that A & B must both have perished from dehydration before C since they had no water at all. So they can't be held responsible anyway.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users