Jump to content


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 :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Murder in the Desert


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
168 replies to this topic

#11 kingofpain

kingofpain

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2007 - 11:40 PM

How could you charge "A" with murder if he didn't MURDER him? He TRIED to poison him by spiking the water. HE DID NOT DIE FROM BEING POISONED. He died of THIRST.. Attempted murder is when someone TRIES to kill someone, but is unsuccessful. That is what "A" did.. He TRIED to poison "C" but was unsuccessful. "B" had the intention of murdering him by ridding him of water. He had no idea that the water was already poisoned!!! His goal was simply to cut the bag, causing "C" to die from thirst. His attempt was SUCCESSFUL. "C" did in fact DIE from LACK OF WATER, NOT POISONING!!!

My conclusion stands...

A = Attempted Murder...
B = Murder

Are you really a Judge???



Ok... let me try and make this clearer to you...

The actions of A were intended to kill C by poisoning him
C died since A depleted C's supply of DRINKABLE WATER. Once A added the poison, C had no drinkable water. C died of thirst thereby making A's actions responsible for the murder.

It is irrelevant that C did not die the way A intended for him to.

The actions of B were intended to kill C
B's actions did not play a part in killing C since B just took away poisoned water from C which was irrelevant to C's death. B's actions in no way caused C's death.

It is irrelevant that C died the way B intended for him to.

I thereby question the veracity of your conclusion.
  • 0

#12 Veracity

Veracity

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 01 June 2007 - 02:19 PM


How could you charge "A" with murder if he didn't MURDER him? He TRIED to poison him by spiking the water. HE DID NOT DIE FROM BEING POISONED. He died of THIRST.. Attempted murder is when someone TRIES to kill someone, but is unsuccessful. That is what "A" did.. He TRIED to poison "C" but was unsuccessful. "B" had the intention of murdering him by ridding him of water. He had no idea that the water was already poisoned!!! His goal was simply to cut the bag, causing "C" to die from thirst. His attempt was SUCCESSFUL. "C" did in fact DIE from LACK OF WATER, NOT POISONING!!!

My conclusion stands...

A = Attempted Murder...
B = Murder

Are you really a Judge???



Ok... let me try and make this clearer to you...

The actions of A were intended to kill C by poisoning him
C died since A depleted C's supply of DRINKABLE WATER. Once A added the poison, C had no drinkable water. C died of thirst thereby making A's actions responsible for the murder.

It is irrelevant that C did not die the way A intended for him to.

The actions of B were intended to kill C
B's actions did not play a part in killing C since B just took away poisoned water from C which was irrelevant to C's death. B's actions in no way caused C's death.

It is irrelevant that C died the way B intended for him to.

I thereby question the veracity of your conclusion.




LOL... WOW... ""It is irrelevant that C died the way B intended for him to"" Are you Serious? I mean, I do understand exactly what you are saying, and there is most definitely some logic to it, however, here in the U.S, If you try to kill someone, and they DIE the way you INTENTDED for them to die... YOU ARE A MURDERER...lol The Potable water issue is understandable, but we are VERY much talking INTENT!!! It is this simple. Had "B" not cut a hole in the bag "C" would have drank the poison and died, making "A" the killer.. I think we both agree on that!!! However, what you are saying is that "C" would have died because of "A"s actions even if "B" didn't cut the bag because "A" destroyed the water source.. Once again, Here in the U.S it's not a matter of what WOULD HAVE, or COULD HAVE happened, It’s a matter of what DID HAPPEN. And "C" DIED OF THRIST DAMNIT. lol I don't care WHAT "A" put in the water,,, it was never INGESTED due to "B"s ACTIONS, which ultimately lead to the unquestionable DEATH of "C"

If you can't grasp this simple concept, then I have no further desire to continue debate on the issue. If it makes you feel better, You win...LMAO

And by the way, you can question my Veracity all day long, but doing so makes about as much sense as your logic on this topic. Truth has nothing to do with someone’s Conclusion on a Puzzle, unless you think I just have nothing better to do then LIE about what I think my answer is... DOES THAT EVEN MAKE SENCE?? LMAO anyway..

NEXT......

P.S I Love You
  • 0

#13 kingofpain

kingofpain

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2007 - 12:37 AM

Well, my point is that intent doesn't matter. If I intend for someone to die of thirst in the desert, I am not responsible because my actions did not cause the death. Similarly, even if I started up my car and drove around looking for X to run over and someone else ran him over, I would not be a murderer (although, if caught I would be an attempted murderer).
I think in this analogue, C died as B wanted him to but as a consequence of A's actions. B just made sure it happened the way B wanted it to happen.

And hey, I just used word veracity since it is your screename... no doubting your truthfulness or the validity of your logic intended... (Just the validity of the conclusion hehehe )... Sorry if that came across the wrong way... Or maybe we should argue the semantics of the word 'veracity' instead)

Cheers!
--
Vig

P.S. I want you to have my kids!!
  • 0

#14 infomaniac.nick

infomaniac.nick

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 12:59 PM

Veracity!

Your blunt logic and tongue are just the same as mine. I completely agree with you exactly.

A poisoned water, plus the fact that there is no poison in C. This is attempted murder NOT ACTUAL MURDER

B slit the bag so that there was no water unbeknownst of A actions so this does not excuse him from commiting the deed! B is the killer by proxy as there was no water and C died of thirst!

QED: Quite Easily Done
  • 0

#15 kingofpain

kingofpain

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:38 PM

The question seems to be discussed in The Philosophical Quarterly and the author seems to agree with you guys. However, as the author is in fact opposing a previous stance by a different author, I am still not convinced.

Also, legally, it seems that if the precise action that caused a crime cannot be determined, all the involved parties are tried for the severest crime that they could be tried for. This seems to be more acceptable to me. Refer to a google of the words 'Mises' 'Ridiculous' and 'scenarios'.

I am more confused than I was to start with, but it seems like a lot of people agree with you guys. I guess I need to analyse this further philosophically, but legislatively, your points of view would win... Unless B had a kickass attorney
Cheers!
--
Vig
  • 0

#16 larryhl

larryhl

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:44 PM

If you look at this as a logic puzzle, then Veracity is absolutely correct. C died from thirst, a lack of water, so B is the murderer.

However, once we get into legal grounds, anything can happen. Lawyers can probably prove the sky to be green and grass to be blue if needed. No point arguing over legalities here.
  • 0

#17 Veracity

Veracity

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 12:29 PM

If you look at this as a logic puzzle, then Veracity is absolutely correct. C died from thirst, a lack of water, so B is the murderer.

However, once we get into legal grounds, anything can happen. Lawyers can probably prove the sky to be green and grass to be blue if needed. No point arguing over legalities here.




ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY O.J IS GUILTY??? LMMFAO... I Love all you guys!

As much as I HATE to admit it, I have been thinking about your point a lot KingOfPain and it does make sense. I think however that we ARE discussing the Legal aspects at that point though. Yes, "A" did spike the water source, therefore "B" might have cut a whole in the bag, but he really didn't rob "C" of water, because "A" already Destroyed the Water making "B"s actions futile, So I see what you mean. Interesting, huh.. Fun Debate!!!!!! I Love this site!


==-V-E-R-A-C-I-T-Y-==
  • 0

#18 g8rda

g8rda

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 05:25 PM

KingOfPain I would only agree with your point of view if the victim knew that the water was poisened. If C didn't drink the water because he knew it was poisened then A would be the murderer regardless of the actions of B. There is no indication that this is the case. The riddle seems to indicate that C didn't drink the water because B cut a hole in the bag. As has been pointed out the victem died of thirst as was the intent of B.
  • 0

#19 Bridge

Bridge

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 19 June 2007 - 05:35 PM

I would like to point out something that i haven't seen mentioned yet. And it is this - B would have to be considered the murderer because we don't know whether the actions of A would have killed C. For instance, what if A hadn't put in quite enough poison to do the trick? Or what if C had been immune to that particular poison in any event (think The Princess Bride)? Therefore there is the possibility that if not for the actions of B, then C would still be alive.

So in summary - we cannot know for certain what would have happened if the bag had not been cut (C may have gotten sick but still survived)...but we do know for certain what would happen, what did happen, when B deprived C of his water.
  • 0

#20 cpotting

cpotting

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 19 June 2007 - 06:52 PM

hmmm. Let's see if my 2 cents worth can muddy up the waters or clear them.

It seems that a lot of people here are mixing in an irrelevant fact: that B unintentionally "saved" C from being poisoned. That does not matter. Even if B knew that the water was poisoned, the fact remains that he deprived C of a water source with the explicit intent to kill C. C died as a direct result of B's actions. B murdered C.

Think of it this way, and may seem clearer. If I intentionally grab you and throw you off a cliff to the rocks below, does it matter that doing so saved you from being shot? Does it matter whether or not I knew you were about to be shot? Is there any way at all that you think a lawyer can convince a judge and jury that I didn't commit murder because I got to you first?

I THREW YOU FROM A CLIFF - I KILLED YOU. INTENTIONALLY. I DIDN'T "SAVE" YOU FROM A BULLET!

I THREW YOU FROM A CLIFF - I KILLED YOU. INTENTIONALLY. I didn't "save" you from a poisoned water bag!

I slit your water bag - I KILLED YOU. INTENTIONALLY. I didn't "save" you from a poisoned water bag!

B slit your water bag - B killed you. Intentionally. B didn't "save" you from a poisoned water bag!

B slit C's water bag - B killed C. Intentionally. B didn't "save" C from a poisoned water bag!

If you believe that you can argue that B saved C from A, then any murderer can get off by saying he was saving his victim from cancer/being run over by a truck/drowning/getting stuck in the dessert with a poisoned bag of water.

Clive "I didn't 'murder' him - I saved him from being murdered by my partner - I'm innocent, I'm a hero" Pottinger
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users