168 replies to this topic

[mafroorfam]

this whole conversation is completeley pointless and really quite obvious, A poisoned the water then B got rid of the water then C died of thirst/dehydration meaning that C didn't get poisoned so it couldn't have been A's fault nd so it there for must be B's fault because there is no other suspect nd b is responsible for there being no water simple.

so there is no need to start talking about any form of legal mumbo jumbo at all it so clear. it is just simple logic.

[unreality]

yes! exactly! It is B's fault! A doesnt matter! As a direct result of B's actions, C died! But some ppl dont get that. i dont see why.

[Pookafalicious]

I say we all should just love one another.

I personally think it would be B for the murderer, because he may have prolonged C's life, but in the end, landed up murdering him.

[sudy]

As much as you all are fretting about what I said, I already know it's B. I thought I implied that well enough but apparently not. I'm just bringing up a good point. Don't deny it, you love it.

[Liderc]

Actually I am pretty sure that nature killed him. I do not believe taking water from someone is considered killing him. It is the same as if you let a man die after being hit by a car becuase you don't call an ambulance.

[unreality]

"when u shoot a gun, the high speed impact kills him, not you, so its not ur fault

when u push someone off a cliff, hitting the water or ground below kills them, not you, so its not ur fault

when u strangle someone, the oxygen depletion from their brain kills them, not you, so its not ur fault

when u take a person's only drinking water source in the desert away from them, the harsh conditions kill him, not you, so its not ur fault"


thats what ur saying. and its totally wrong, my friend.

[sudy]

"when u shoot a gun, you initiated the high speed impact which kills him, so it is ur fault

when u push someone off a cliff, you made them fall from steady ground, and hitting the water or ground below kills them, so it is ur fault

when u strangle someone, you caused the oxygen depletion from their brain which kills them, so it is ur fault

when u take a person's only drinking water source in the desert away from them, you enabled the harsh conditions to kill him, so it is ur fault"

[Babers-san]

This horse has been beaten for long enough, I know, but wanted to add the following and see what the group thought (seeing as far as I know, nobody as brought up the innocence of both A and B for the crime of murder).

Most judicial systems of the world (including Canada and USA) rest on Blackstone's formulation: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." These systems are set up so that various elements of a crime need be met before punishment is determined. Hence, we have varying crimes, with differing punishments, and the difference basically comes down to whether all the elements of a particular crime are met.

To hold A guilty of murder, without causation, is an absurdity. A previous post states that it was the poisoning of the water that resulted in the lack of potable water, and thus A is guilty of murder; and, others have stated that B only extended C's life span by slitting the bag. These are red herrings, and would probably be fun to include on a criminal law exam, but most students would tear the argument to shreds. A's intent was to kill C by poisoning him. He poisoned the water, but the causal link is missing. His action did not lead to the death of C. He is guilty of attempted murder, period.

The interesting part of the question is whether B is guilty of murder. B intended to kill C by taking away his water. B's action was to slit the bag. C died because he had no water to drink. However, it was not B's action that resulted in C's lack of potable water. The previous poster's comments regarding the potability of the water does not lead to A's guilt with regards to the crime of murder, but rather to B's innocence for the same crime. B is guilty of many things, but I think it can be argued that he's not guilty of murder. Consider this: B wants to kill C, B slits the bag, the bag is already empty. Now, is he guilty of murder? What's the difference between an empty bag and a bag full of poisoned water?

Neither A nor B is guilty of murder.

[ecoolhandluke]

Morally: wrong by almost any code on both A and B's account
Legally: multiple answers here, depends on the legal system obviously. In America you would probably need a confession because there doesn't seem enough evidence to swing the case.
Factually: both A and B wanted C to die, and both succeeded whether or not they succeeded in their 'scheme' or desired 'time window' doesn't really matter. All people will die eventually anyways so if a person is convicted of attempted homocide and his victim eventually dies of a heart attack 20 years down the road is he a murderer? I'd say factually yes he is, a bad one albeit, but a murderer all the same.

[unreality]

"when u shoot a gun, you initiated the high speed impact which kills him, so it is ur fault

when u push someone off a cliff, you made them fall from steady ground, and hitting the water or ground below kills them, so it is ur fault

when u strangle someone, you caused the oxygen depletion from their brain which kills them, so it is ur fault

when u take a person's only drinking water source in the desert away from them, you enabled the harsh conditions to kill him, so it is ur fault"

lol no sh*t! I was proving a point to that guy that posted before me that said the "desert killed B, not the water". I was telling him how wrong he was. i dont think that.


and to that person that said A and B are innocent:
1. i think everyone agrees A is innocent except for attempted murder. Duh.

2. B is definitely guilty. Sure if B hadn't of slit the sack, C wouldve died anyway, but B did slit the sack and C died because of B. B is the murderer. End of story.