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

#61 sajow4

sajow4

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 10 August 2007 - 11:54 PM

I do not understand how A can be convicted of murder, when really, A did not do anything to harm C. C died of thirst, not poisoning! A tried to kill C, but B slit C's water bag, causing him to die of thirst.
(Putting aside all other things, that A and B got to an oasis first or frivolous things that matter not in this situation, being as it is an example) B killed C by taking away his water supply, causing him to die. A tried to kill C, but B got to him first. B is the murderer of C.
  • 0

#62 twilly

twilly

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 15 August 2007 - 04:20 AM

this whole argument should be on law and order or something because it is the BEST DAMN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER SEEN and its seven pages long too, would make for quite some episode.
  • 0

#63 sudy

sudy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 23 August 2007 - 06:43 PM

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

ahahah yes we have completely butchered it to kibbles n bits. I stand by the fact that B murdered C. However I always like to let my mind stray away and think of other possibilities and scenarios; or interpret it differently just because the result will differ when you interchange the possibilities, scenarios and interpretations. Just trying to provoke thought.

Like play with these:

How would it have been different if B was not there?

How would it have been different if A was not there?

How would it have been different if they were walking in the park?

How would it have been different if C caught B about to cut the slit, but didn't know A poisoned his water?!
  • 0

#64 moviseer

moviseer

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:02 PM

I say C's death was incurred when his own body seeking water sucked itself dry. C Killed C. The other two set him up.
  • 0

#65 sudy

sudy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:04 PM

I say my idea is better :/
  • 0

#66 sajow4

sajow4

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 26 August 2007 - 02:58 AM

Yes, this could be on Law and Order.
A could be convicted of attempted murder, and B of third-degree murder.
  • 0

#67 nigelpogi5

nigelpogi5

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 27 August 2007 - 10:09 AM

C'mon There is no MURDERER all of THEM DIED on THIRST
  • 0

#68 JASON4P8C10

JASON4P8C10

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 01:24 AM

No body killed him he died of natural caused had he been posioned he would have been murdered.
Now person B cut the sack but that is different the cutting his thoat 1 being that he would die and the other being that he may die.
But since the cause of death was thirst he could not have been murdered.
Thank You! Thank You!
I accept donation!
  • 0

#69 nigelpogi5

nigelpogi5

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:11 AM

LET PRAY THAT LETTER © GUY GO TO HEAVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 0

#70 sajow4

sajow4

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 09:30 PM

No body killed him he died of natural caused had he been posioned he would have been murdered.
Now person B cut the sack but that is different the cutting his thoat 1 being that he would die and the other being that he may die.
But since the cause of death was thirst he could not have been murdered.



No, that is incorrect. It is like if an elderly man is dying, and he needs a certain medicine to survive, but if a woman prevented him from taking those pills and the man died, than the woman could be convicted of murder.
The person in the riddle died because of lack of thirst, since it is known he had a sack of water, and B cut his sack, spilling the water, B caused C to died, regardless of A or anything else.

C'mon There is no MURDERER all of THEM DIED on THIRST

This would be incorrect as well, because in the riddle, only C died. It is unknown what happens there-on, but it could be that A and B were found by a helicopter or something - Point being, only C died of thirst, and A and B lived. B was the murderer of C, and A attempted murder.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users