Murder in the Desert

[unreality]

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

[Guest]

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?!

[Guest]

@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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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?!

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

I say my idea is better :/

[Guest]

Yes, this could be on Law and Order.

A could be convicted of attempted murder, and B of third-degree murder.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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!

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

How did B cause the death of C?

He didn't take away anything from C that would have let him live.

It may as well have been rocks in the bag that B slit for all the difference it made.

A attempted to kill C by poisoning his water.

B attempted to kill C by taking away what he thought was the only drinkable water C had.

C didnt drink the poison.

B didnt take any water away from C - I say this because after the actions of A, it was really diluted poison, not H20.

So what is the solution? *shrugs* Im not sure. But its not as simple as 'oh B is guilty because C died of thirst not of poison'

[Guest]

I would like to point out a few thngs that I have observed from the postings I have read for this question. Yes,there are a lot of irrelevant comments.

1. The question is not about the legal system. It is not 'How would a court judge them?" The question is "Who is guilty of the murder?" Therefore, lawyers, evidence, court systems, legal systems, etc. are ALL IRRELEVANT.

2. A poisoned the water - GIVEN. No one else knew it - GIVEN; therefore, as far as anyone else was aware, there was nothing wrong with the water - GIVEN.

3. C supplied himself with a reserve of water - GIVEN; therefore, C did not commit suicide - GIVEN.

4. The question says nothing about what the current status is of A or B; therefore, whether they had something else to drink, found another supply of water or died before C did, is irrelevant. The question is specifically about who murdered C - GIVEN.

5. A used poison (the weapon) to murder C - GIVEN. C did not die of poison - GIVEN. Therefore, A did not commit the murder. As the question was "Who murdered C?" - GIVEN, legalities do not factor into the answer. The question is not "Who is guilty of what?" or "What crime did who commit?" or "Who committed murder vs Who attempted murder?" Therefore, what A did was irrelevant to the murder.

6. The heat etc. from the desert causing dehydration, thirst, etc, was the process of dying. (Equivalent to: you shoot someone; the impact of the bullet causes bleeding; the bleeding/loss of blood results in death.) Therefore, the environment, the desert, was not the cause of death. It equated to the impact of a bullet.

7. B removed C's supply of water - GIVEN. B used the removal of the water supply (the weapon) to murder C - GIVEN. Cause of death was lack of water - GIVEN. Therefore, B murdered C.

The line of logic to answer the question.

TigerCat

[Guest]

B killed him. A had the intention to kill C, but B carried it out by splitting the bag and thus causing C to die of thirst, not poisioning.

It's pretty stupid and improbable for both B&C to attempt to kill C by destroying off their only (apparent) source of water in the desert. There's a good chance that the desert would have killed any of them first without human intervention/intention.

[Guest]

There's a good chance that the desert would have killed any of them first without human intervention/intention.

This is the argument I was trying to bring up in some of my earlier posts. It is likely that all three would perish in the harsh conditions of the desert. If two of the individuals somehow managed to survive, even after destroying all hopes of any potable water between them; I can't imagine they be tried for murder. Nobody would know C died of thirst because A and B sabotaged the drinking supply. It would just be a typical case of dehydration leading to heat stroke, which results in death. Nobody would know B or A even tried killing him; If there was a hole in the water bladder, it could have been caused by a thorn bush, or anything else in nature that has razor sharp edges. Who's to say A and B wont walk out of the courtroom free men? Lest we forget there are no witnesses speaking on C's behalf.

I do take a stand on more than one facet of this argument, this being one of them.

[Guest]

Well, Tigercat. If you want to take it out of 'the legal system' lets do so. But do so correctly.

1. The question is not about the legal system. It is not 'How would a court judge them?" The question is "Who is guilty of the murder?" Therefore, lawyers, evidence, court systems, legal systems, etc. are ALL IRRELEVANT.

You missed 'Who knows what' is also IRRELEVANT to what actually happened.

7. B removed C's supply of water - GIVEN. B used the removal of the water supply (the weapon) to murder C - GIVEN. Cause of death was lack of water - GIVEN. Therefore, B murdered C.

... wrong.

C died of thirst, a lack of water to drink.

B didn't remove any water(H20) from C.

The splitting of C's bag is as inconsequential as it would have been if it was full of lead paint.

****

It is no different than if A had or replaced the drinkable water with paint, and B split the bag (thus spilling the paint) before C realised. You wouldnt claim that B was the one who removed C's drinking water.

It is the same in the original scenario. C had no water(H20) in the bag when it was split.

Whether they KNEW the *water* that was lost when B split the bag was already undrinkable is irrelevant. The fact remains that the *water* that B removed, could not have saved C's life in any way.

SO, B removed nothing that attributed to C's death.

****

note: Im not saying that B is innocent or that A is guilty. Im simply pointing out the errors in you own line of logic which you so boldly claim is "The line of logic to answer the question."

The biggest error that most people seem to be making is equating drinkable water, ie H20, with undrinkable poisoned liquid that has water in it.