Murder in the Desert

[Guest]

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]

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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)

[Guest]

a lads c'mon!! if C died of thirst.. it would hav 2 be B's fault since he is the 1 hu got rid of the water supply!

[Guest]

I am more or less elaborating on Goldilocks's first response.

It seems like A and B are complete retards. If either of them pleaded insanity I'm sure they'd be all set. Who wants to poison or deplete your one and only source of water. Only a fool would do such a thing. Even still, how could they know it will be an effective way of killing C? Let's say, under the harsh conditions of a desert, that you can only live for three days without water, and lets say their journey through the desert will be 6 days. So we will assume all participants have been drinking from the water supply for at least the first three days. The funny thing about dehydration is that it effects everybody in pretty much the same way. One day without water - you are thirsty. Two days without water - you are losing strength and focus. Day three you are so weak from dehydration that you cannot continue your journey and you will surely perish overnight. How could A and B have committed to something that could possibly kill themselves in the process? The desert is a harsh place to survive without water. You will most likely die by the end of the third day. That being said, how could C have been the only one to die, if you must all stay hydrated in the desert?

[Guest]

^they had secret hidden stashes of water that C couldn't get to,

or quite possibly that A and B drank a buch of water right before A poisned it then B cut the sack

Then right after C died

They stubled onto an Oasis on the Third Day. A+B would make it out, but C would be dead

[unreality]

and B would be solely responsible for C's murder (just strengthening the point lol)

[Guest]

I'm just saying. As the proposed problem states, C was the only one with access to water. And even if A and B "found" water in the desert. They clearly hadn't planned on stumbling upon it. I see what you are saying though, if A and/or B HAD discovered, or knew about another source of drinkable water; then I suppose that might change the physics therein where, now that they have water, they may be more inclined to kill C. I was just basing my theory on the fact that the problem says C was the only one with water.

[Guest]

seriously?! for the upteenth time! "C died of THIRST" as in... not drinking... no water... due to the LACK OF WATER IN HIS BAG. whether or not it was poisoned water, HE NEVER GOT ANY.

and secondly -- the question asked who was the murderer not who would get CHARGED with his murder/attempted murder in a courtroom. stop overthinking the question!

[Guest]

I already know C died of thirst, so thank you for the redundancy right there.... this would be difficult to achieve in real life unless it was premeditated, and you had water for yourself to survive; if you did intend on killing C by depleting his AND YOUR OWN water supply. How are you planning on getting out if everybody dies from dehydration in pretty much the same amount of time (If C is dead from dehydration, you can't POSSIBLY be in any condition to continue, and C was the ONLY ONE WITH WATER) , and FYI "who was the murderer", is the same as who is charged with murder seeing as how charging someone with murder means to place blame for the murder of the victim. I'm not an idiot, thank you for questioning my intelligence though, and you got my answer: I think outside the box, you do not. I rest my case.

P.S. You may be reading this and flipping out about what you think, but I really don't care what you think, I'm right because this problem has faults, Goldilocks brought them to your attention, I expounded upon it; and you refused to accept it.

I know your type. A train of thought that runs on a simple path, because you can't free yourself from your current mind state and perceive things differently. You see the word Orange but not not the color red; or vice versa. Enlighten your mind to the possibilities, and don't be so quick to dismiss them. Otherwise that's what you get.

[Guest]

Enlighten your mind to the possibilities.

A and B had apple juice, and thus no intent on dying.

Discuss.

Edit:

A poisoned the water with his urine and feces.

C, knowing the water was poisoned, did not drink it.

A's intent was for C to die of thirst.

B, still unaware of A's actions, cut the sack.

[Guest]

Now see? That's what I'm talkin' about right there! Maybe A and B didn't have access to water, but maybe another drink that could hydrate you... Gatorade!

[unreality]

thats exactly what i was thinking. (except i was thinking lemonade lol but whatever). maybe thats the catch of the puzzle. but if there are no catches, nothing that says "they all die", and we assume that A and B had something else to drink and live to reach the court, then it doestn matter what A put in the water cuz C died from B's actions alone. no matter what twists we put onto it, no matter if they even make it to court, C died because of B, it doesnt matter what A did. A couldve been doing handstands for all anyone should care.

but in court, anything could happen. but rightfully, what SHOULD happen, assuming A and B both survive, B should be charged with first degree murder, A with attempted homicide.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

"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"

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.