168 replies to this topic

[kabooms1fire]

What you all are forgetting is that C died of dehydration. If the poison killed by dehydration and C did take a sip before B slit the container than C could have died as a direct result of the poison.

[kabooms1fire]

Also the who quetion is moot this happened in the desert no witnesses no evidence both A and B would get off scott free.

[abd9810]

So what's the deal? You all seem to be missing the point, C died from the direct actions of B NOT A , therefor B is the murderer and A is an attempted murderer. So to prove my point what if C drank the poison water and before he died B slit his throat (not the bag). Thus the poison didn't kill him in either scenarios. :

[tawraven]

Actually, if C died of thirst and he had water originally, A & B had probably already died of thirst before C died. So technically, neither of them could be charged with murder.

[update] Sorry for the repeat of Goldilocks answer. I did not see his until after I posted.

[thornpetals]

C did not drink the water, it was suicide(even if b cut the sack, he still did not try to drink that we hear of-if b were the killer they would say something like c tried to drink but found no water)

[qwerty]

NICE ONE!!! murder: the act of killing someone; general definition. c would say: b murdered c because he cut my water recipient and i had no water. -> b is a killer. BUT nor b or c knew that the water was undrinkable, so the accusation made earlier is futile. or, in other words, taking into account whats a b c knew the phrases b saved c and b killed c are technically correct and true, depends on c`s feelings. as for a, the same rules and concepts apply. did a killed c? there is no known a`s action that led to c`s death. just a potential hypothesis. a posioned c`s water but his wannabe murderer career was ended by b`s actions. equally, b`s cutting of the reciepient was futile because the preposioning of the water by a. none of them can be charged with murder, at the same time, because only one of them can be guilty of murder, nor separately, because separating them means that thier finality of the so called murder would be anulated by the others action. and at the same time it can be said that a/b saved c from b/a`s action. BUT c died. and it was not suicide. so someone or something is guilty. the earlier paradox is because we have two finished actions and we also have two unfinished results of the actions. (b expected c to die from having no drinkable water to die, not poisoned, so the rule applies). consequently, a and c can have a trial for attemped murder, but not for murder, none of them actions led to murder. continuing my logic, c died not because of a or b but because of thirst. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING. it would have been the same if he drank his water and died later because he had no water. noone is guilty for c`s death, but for leaving him without the water, and here we can trial both b and c. THERE MUST BE A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN FACTS AND INTENTIONS & GOALS AND FINALITIES. but personally i would accuse B for murder. i am open comments and replys.
<!-- ia0 -->explicite.JPG<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:e0afd]

Attached Images

• 

[gwynnen]

I think everybody is trying to hard to figure this out and ignoring one very important fact. Only 'c' had water, therefore if 'c' died of dehydration, then given the facts presented, 'a' and 'b' must also have died of dehydration since the only one that had water was 'c'.

So even though 'b' cut the sack leaving them with no water at all, 'b' is now dead so nobody can be charged with murder.

[unreality]

veracity's logic is perfect

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.

okay lemme copy the important part of what you said:

"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."

shortened down to the essence of your point:

"took away poisoned water from C which was irrelevant to C's death"

WHAT? It's how he died! It doesnt matter if there was poison or not in the water... he didnt die from poison... he died as a direct result of B's actions. It doesnt matter if A put koolaid powder or poison or nothing at all in the water... because C NEVER TOOK A SIP OF THE WATER! B killed him. A tried to kill him but B got to him first. That's all.

B- murderer!
A- attempted murderer

of course A and B might have died by dehydration long before that, and if they didnt nobody would really know anything and there would be no witnesses anyway, and in the courts, anything could happen, but the essence is that B killed him. It makes no sense that A killed him because A doesnt matter. Whatever A did to the water doesnt matter. That water is draining down in the desert sand.

[savagegamer90]

I say that because both parties acted on thier own intentions (which was to kill C)
They are both equally at fault for killing C
No matter how he died, he would have died the other way to
although in a court B would be charged with murder, and A would have atempted murder.
only if C knew that his water had been contaminated could you blame A for depleting the drinking source

[unreality]

exactly (but he didnt)