168 replies to this topic

[unreality]

@sudy: thats not what i actually think. i was proving a point to Liderc or whatever his name is.

[coolkid101]

Even though A tried to murder C he did not suceed so therefore A CAN NOT be the murder! And B succeded in killing the guy so therefore B is the murder! I still have a guestion though what did C do that was bad enough for 2 differnt people to kill him?!

[sudy]

@sudy: thats not what i actually think. i was proving a point to Liderc or whatever his name is.

oh right on, yeah i was just re-enforcing what you said

[Babers-san]

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.

You're not getting it. C did not die "because of B" - he died of thirst. Thirst is the result of not having water to drink. The water that escaped from the sack was not potable anyways. The true question is whether "impossibility" is a defense to murder. You're speaking morally, and morally I agree with you, but I add that morally even A is guilty. Legally, there is no doubt regarding A's innocence for the crime of murder, I'm adding that there is some question as to whether B meets the criteria. Murder requires an act which results in your intended outcome. Now, B's defense lawyers would argue that it was not the act (slitting the bag) that resulted in C's dying of thirst, as even without his act, C would have died either or poisoning, or of thirst (if he figured out the water was poisoned and threw it away, for example). If "impossibility" is no defense to murder, then B is guilty of murder, because the impossibilty of C to die of thirst, regardless of B's actions, wouldn't matter. In other words, you slit the bag, what was in it is irrelevant, C died of thirst, you intended that outcome, case closed. However, if impossibility is a defense, then B too is only guilty of attempted murder. The slitting of the bag did not result in the death by thirst because he did not take away anythign that could have quenched C's thirst, as the act of A already rendered the water undrinkable.

Before you repeat yourself and tell me B's guilty, end of story, think this one through. I agreed with you until I gave the elements of the crime some good thought.

[unreality]

i see what you're saying... but....

would have died either or poisoning, or of thirst

And he died of thirst. It was B's doing.

But you're saying B didn't kill C because C already didnt have good water.


That's like saying shooting an old man in the street is okay because he was going to die soon anyway. Maybe he was going to die soon. Maybe he wanted to die. But the fact is, its not the shooter's call. It's not the shooter's judgement that matters. Nobody decides for the old man if he should be killed because he's old. It would still be murder to shoot him in the head.

Sorry that was a confusing anology. Forget that. This is what the arguement boils down to:

Side 1: It does not matter what was in the water. It couldve been poison or the Water of Eternal Youth. It doesnt matter. B took it away from A and A died because he had nothing to drink. B's intent was to kill C by dehydration and it worked. He murdered C. Whatever A did to the water was insignificant because the water never came into play, because of B.

Side 2: It does matter what the water was, because the water is what B took away from C. If the water was undrinkable, B was not responsible because C would have died anyway because the water was bad.

My response to side 2: yes, C would have died anyway... but then A would be responsible, not B. And also, the only ppl that knew of the poison was A. B didnt know and C didnt know. So B wasn't "saving C from poison" and C didn't "die of thirst because he didn't want to drink poisoned water". Nobody knew about the poisoned water in their motives, except A. B's motives were different. And B's motives suceeded.


Though its a nice point, barbera sans

[EZTORRES]

Looking at it logically:

A intends to kill C but does not because of B's interference.
B would actually be convicted of murder because B actually caused C's death.

[vsharma]

Neither A or B can be held accountable just because they had the intention of murdering C. C died of thirst - which is a natural cause not an act or murder.

[unreality]

quoting myself...

"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.

me and sudy have destroyed this viewpoint. lol

[kimmeruk]

Seems like C wasn't a very likeable guy! A and B basically oft themselves by destroying the water. Lesson : be pleasant in te desert when yu don't have mch wate.

[mwh]

He died from thirst, not poisoning, so B is the killer.