Murder in the Desert

[Guest]

To clarify the "A&B didn't have water either!" argument I'll propose 3 scenario's. Go with which ever one you want.

1. A&B had gatorade, urine filters, electrolyte pills or a number of other methods of quenching thirst to prevent dehydration without WATER.

2. Proper hydration needs to be prepared well in advance. So, lets assume that the night before their little hike through the desert, A&B drank a gallon of water each and C drank a bottle of tequila, making him far more dehydrated, far faster.

3. A took a big sip from the bag, B took a big sip from the bag, and then C carried it without drinking from it. A poisoned knowing C had to drink it eventually to survive.

My opinion is that B is the murderer. If I shoot someone in the head with the intention to kill them, and the bullet enters their head and they die from it, I murdered them. It makes no difference if someone else intended to kill them another way. B intended to do it, intended the result to be death, took action and the death occurred directly as a result... thats murder, right?

If B hadn't cut the bag, whose to say C would definitely have died from the poison anyway. Perhaps he threw it up immediately, spit it out upon tasting it, simply became very sick or even dropped the entire bag of water before getting to drink from it. If B hadn't cut the bag, there is no proof that A's actions definitely would have caused C's death... only that he ATTEMPTED to.

My 2 cents, argue away!

[Guest]

thi is easy for anyone who ahs studied law, in RvWhite its shown that if somebody dies before you can kill them then you cannot be charged with murder, so A is in the clear, although he might still be boned for attempted murder. B murdered him by deliberately depriving him of water. Why both A and B didnt die of thirst also is beyond me.

[Guest]

In my opinion, B was the murderer. A would have been the murderer if B hadn't spilt the water of C, but he wasn't. Even though B made C live longer, he still killed him in the end.

[Guest]

'A' killed everyone.

They are in the desert.

Water = chance at living longer.

'A' destroyed the last of the water, and therefore the last of the chance at life.

'B' certainly tried to kill 'C', but at that point it was moot, as C's fate was already sealed.

[Guest]

Wait, if C was the only one that had water, wouldn't that mean that A and B should have died of thirst earlier than C??

[Guest]

Obviously B was killer as C died because of thirst not bacause of poison and thirsty condition was made by B.

[Guest]

I'd say that it was [spoiler='murder in the desert

']a beacuse idk

[Guest]

a would be charged with attempted murder but not b because in a way he helped c

[Guest]

B is the murderer. Although both are guilty of attempting to murder C, B was the only one to succeed. Since the cause of death was dehydration.

[Guest]

Both of them individually attempted to kill C, which would indicate in attempted murder for A, and murder on the behalf of B.

Regardless if B was successful or not, had he not cut the bag, C would be poisoned.

Had A not poisoned the bag, B would have been still been successful in his efforts to cut it.

However, even if B did cut the bag, there are other factors to consider. Did B cut the bag at night, when they were sleeping? Wouldn't his greedy conscience ( assuming he's that sort of deviant person, I mean, give him some slack, he's murdering a man. ) tell him to drink a bit of it, while cutting it? I'm fairly certain I would have, resulting in B's death, or some sort of ailment acquiring his person.

Yet, in the middle of the desert, where did A find poisons? Were they carrying the poisons around or were they delivering them? Another factor to consider is the fact they would not be able to even make it to the town, should we include the time it took for C to die from a lack of water.

Seeing as C had the water at the time of poisoning / cutting of the supply, and there were no other sources of water, we could safely assume both A and B perished in unison. If the time they were traveling after the water was diminished was long enough for C to die, wouldn't they both dehydrate and likely pass away as well?

Imagine the scene of three dead men, out in the middle of the desert. You'd see one with a cut open bag, and the other two were carrying poisons. ( Assuming on the previously stated part explaining the fact that they were delivering a shipment of poisons. ) Undoubtedly, the authorities would conclude that they probably mixed in some poisons with their water supplies accidentally, and killed themselves.

Or, they could conclude they merely ran out of water. However, if back at this time, services kept track of their goods on some sort of receipt while they were making the trip to ensure it all arrived safely, the police could cross check the amount of poisons with the amount this 'receipt' offered them proof of. The rational thought would be that the officer realizes there is a difference in amount from the receipt to the actual amount they were carrying, and would deduct it being either:

A. They accidentally mixed in their water supplies with some poisons, resulting in their untimely deaths.

B. They were traveling through some thick brush that tore some of the poisons from the bags, as well as ripping the water satchel. ( Safely assuming the three were traveling across more rough terrain previous to the desert.

C. One of the three sabotaged the water supplies, and the other one, upon noticing it, sliced the bag.

D. Any other logical agreements as to how this could have happened, I won't go too far in-depth.

As the reader can see, there are a great number of aspects to this story that could be investigated to consider what the final verdict was.

However, if you go by the basics, B would be the blatant murderer. A would only be accused of attempted homicide, should the court in question ever find the untouched poisons in the residue left on the satchel's interior.

Edited July 22, 2008 by Stove

[Guest]

Murder in the Desert - Back to the River Crossing Puzzles

This is a story about three people (A, B a C) crossing a desert. A hated C and decided to kill him - he poisoned the water in his sack (only C had water). B also wanted to kill C (not knowing that the water of C had been already poisoned) and so B made a hole into the sack of C and the water spilt out. A few days later C died of thirst.

Who was the murderer - A or B?

Neither A nor B murdered C. The important thing to remember is that no sane person that is in the desert would cause the only water to be, A - Poisoned, or B - spilt if they had an opportunity to drink the water themselves. Therefore since A was willing to poison the only water and B was willing to waste the only water, they must have known that they would have no opportunity to drink the said water themselves, obviously because C was denying them the water and in fact trying to murder both A and B by withholding the water from them. From this we can conclude that both the actions of A and the actions of B were retalitory to C's attempted murder of them and therefore the actions of both A and B were self-defence.

[Guest]

I would say it was the desert.

[Guest]

they are in the middle of the freakin desert! WHO'S TO KNOW?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

my theory is that justice would be served justly if the desert killed them both. then the government wouldn't have to make decisions or charge the death penalty.

[Guest]

This is easy. I would never read an entire book about this because that would be a huge waste of time.

The answer is B is the murderer. His action caused C to die, that's all you need to know. A attempted murder but did not succeed, hence cannot (read should not) be charged for murder.

Any other conserderation is just BS used to confuse people and the use of it is the reason people get away with murder in the world.

Murder in the Desert - Back to the River Crossing Puzzles

This is a story about three people (A, B a C) crossing a desert. A hated C and decided to kill him - he poisoned the water in his sack (only C had water). B also wanted to kill C (not knowing that the water of C had been already poisoned) and so B made a hole into the sack of C and the water spilt out. A few days later C died of thirst.

Who was the murderer - A or B?

Murder in the Desert - solution

Well, this is a hard one. In my opinion, there is no clear solution. Each point of view is correct, somehow. Most of the people would say that A is the murderer. Solicitor of B would stress 2 things:

1. to take away poisoned water from someone does not mean killing him,

2. B just made C live longer, even if he did not mean to (the poison might have killed C earlier).

However, solicitor of A could present the following argument:

"How can be A be punished for committing a murder by poisoning C, if C did not swallow a single drop of poison."

Raymond M. Smullyan pointed out the moral, legal and logical point of view. It is morally clear that both A and B are guilty of homicide attempt. Legally, 2 different courts could judge them in 2 different ways. And logic gives us the opportunity to write a whole book on this topic.

[Guest]

I think that B is the murderer cuz even if A hadn't poisened the water then B still would have cut the slit in the bag, right?

[Guest]

After analyzing this question, i came up with the same responses as other people, that A could be the murderer because he deprived C of drinkable water, and B could be the murderer because he deprived C of any water at all, but my immediate thought was this:

I think C is partly to blame for his death. Noticing he had no water in his bag (because B cut it) he could have done something. I know he was in the middle of the desert, but he could have looked for an oasis, drunk his own saliva, maybe drunk his own urine......something. I've never been stranded in the middle of the desert before....but if you knew u hadn't much water wouldn't you try you're hardest to figure out an alternative? something to get you through until you find more water?

[Guest]

This puzzle apeared to be kind of easy.

My theory is...

That Both A and B are the murderers.

A, WANTED to kill C.

A, TRIED to kill C.

In the end, C, eventually died.

B, also WANTED to kill C.

B, also TRIED to kill C.

C is now dead.

Seeing as both A and B WANTED and TRIED and SUCEEDED in killing C.

They are both murderers.

Thats just my opinion.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Intent matter is in the legal world.

It is the basis of the mens rae element, without intent you can't prosecute

Mens rea is the guilty mind (and A and B both had the guilty mind)

Actus reas and is the physical act (A and B both acted on their guilty mind)

Causation: in criminal law you need both the proximate cause and the actual cause

Need I explain?

harm -- death from thirst "a few days later"

a person can survive without water for about a week

Both are murders (tho in what degree is a different matter)

but the question asks who was the murderer?

both A and B were.

Finally! After 10+ pages of arguments someone finally nailed it.

Both A and B hated C

Both A and B actively took steps to kill C

C died as a result of A and B's actions. Had both of them not acted C would be alive.

Had A not acted C would still be dead

Had B not acted C would still be dead

Both A and B are murderers.

Thank you, Legal Geek!

[Guest]

Okay, haven't read all pages. And, yes, this is an old one. However, assuming nobody has made the argument yet, as C was the only one with water (and following the presumed intent of the writer, there was no other liquid sustenance available), both A and B would have died before C, as they would have suffered dehydration first. Reaching, and I know it might be, perhaps A and B were angry with C because he wouldn't share? Therefore, C would have been the original murderer. As for who is guilty, A or B, a good lawyer (or maybe even a not-so-good one) could convict either.

[Guest]

I to have not read them all..the fact is one died of thirst no other statement claims the other two died so they must have had other drink appart from the water stated..The only answer is they bothed killed him by depriving him of his water but never gave him any of their fluid..

[Guest]

Okay,

If B cut the water bag, the water spilled into the desert sand, which is permeable, right? So wouldn't it just disappear?

Then neither of the people could be charged with poisoning C because the evidence of poison is gone.

It'll just come down to cutting the bag, right?

Then it depends on who has a better alibi and lawyer and whatnot.

But...

If it was a concrete desert and the water stayed there and there was evidence of poison, than they'd both be to blame. (Prosecution wise) Because if B didn't cut the bag, A'd still poison the water and C would be dead, right? And if A didn't poison the water, B'd still cut the bag and C would be dead.

So yeah, I agree that both A & B are murderers.

But LogicalRefigerator has a point.....

Eeep!

Edited December 26, 2008 by KnightOfNi

[Guest]

I know this has been hounded but I just have to say this...the following is not valid in my mind and I will explain why:

Finally! After 10+ pages of arguments someone finally nailed it.

Both A and B hated C

Both A and B actively took steps to kill C

C died as a result of A and B's actions. Had both of them not acted C would be alive.

Had A not acted C would still be dead

Had B not acted C would still be dead

Both A and B are murderers.

Thank you, Legal Geek!

The biggest problem here is you are ASSUMING that the poison would have killed C. We do not know this. The concentration may not have been strong enough. The poison may not have been effective on C for a multitude of reasons. It could have been so slow acting that poison or not, C was hydrated enough to reach help before the poison actually killed him. One can not say for certain that "Had B not acted C would still be dead." We do not know this for fact, as it did not come to pass. However, it is fact that C died of dehydration. B caused the actual murder regardless of As intent. Obviously, A would be guilty of attempted murder, but one would have to prove that the poison would have been sufficient to kill C to get me to buy the above argument.

Edited December 30, 2008 by tanya_khosh

[Guest]

Gah they beat me to it:

If C drank some of the poisoned water before B cut the bag, then what if the poison was a slow acting, paralyzing poison that immobilized C, preventing him from obtaining new, fresh water (assuming it was available), thereby making him die of dehydration. Where I'm going with this is that if the water were not poisoned before B cut the bag, C might have been able to get a fresh supply of water and live, thereby POSSIBLY making A the murderer.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Alnifrazz

[Guest]

For some reason, I cannot edit my post... so:

Alternatively,

If C had drank a bit of the poison and it wasn't strong enough to do any harm, then when B cut the bag he would still be able to find fresh water. It says he died a few days later, but "few" is enough time for him to find a water supply, and then survive longer than he would have with his bag of water, nullifying both attempted murders, so you could just say that NEITHER of them killed him, the desert did. or if you want to stretch "few" into relatively few days, he could have escaped the desert and then sometime during his life got into the situation again that he had no water and died of dehydration, A nor B would have to be the murderer. So you could say both killed him, one or the other, or neither. There are plenty of different scenarios that you could think up, and most of them would be right in some way or another.

"Open minds lead to new discoveries."

[Guest]

the guy died from thirst not by poison.

so A is already out of the suspicion

and also no one in the group knows that A had planted poison on C's jug

the court must prove that B did it on purpose.

Again only C carriers the water, so the court must think that by doing that B also endangered their lives.

although we all know that he hated C.

the court must have existing proof that B did it on purpose...

--------

B is the murderer

wahahahaha