Death of Nine Men

[Guest]

There was a man that lived in a house by himself and had lived there for a long, long time and never left. One day he packed his bags, watered his garden, turned the lights off, lodked the door and left with no intention to return. That night him leaving resulted in the death of 9 men. Why?

[WitchOfDoubt]

I know the traditional answer to this one, but let me give a different one.

He was an eccentric billionaire who owned a baseball team. A rival team beat his, humiliating his. So he went out and murdered them, then became a fugitive from justice.

[Guest]

Well not exactly but that sounds really interesting. Any other ideas?

[Guest]

The man was leaving a lighthouse. He turned off the lights, locked up and left. No light in the lighthouse = boats crashed and men died.

[Guest]

Man lives in the lighthouse. As he left and turned off the light some boat with 9 men on board crashed becaused they didn't saw the cliffs.

[Aziraphael]

He is a lighthouse keeper, and it resulted in a boat crashing into the rocks, as he turned out the giant lamp which serves as warning.

[Guest]

Why wouldn't he come back to the lighthouse?

Edit:Spelling

Edited December 23, 2011 by EllaRD

[Guest]

The door was tied to a string which held up a blade of a 9 man guillotine so when he closed the door the string was pulled or something and down went the blade

[DeathStone0000]

The nine men were supposed to be robbers and they were locked inside the house when the owner left. They eventually died inside because of hunger....or something else....i dunno......

[Guest]

He lived in a lighthouse.

[Guest]

I, like many others, do believe that the person who left was a lighthouse keeper. It would seem, then, that the blame for the deaths rested with that person. But if we investigate further, we find that the lighthouse keeper was forced to leave. Why was this so?

In an era of environmental concerns, the normal lights we used to use (e.g. tungsten) were phased out and were replaced by more energy-efficient ones. The use of those inefficient light sources became legally banned. Unfortunately, no one had the foresight to prepare for the inevitable time when the beacons of the lighthouse had to to changed to meet the new legal requirements. There were simply no new lights that would function properly in the lighthouse. No one had considered that a new and special kind of beacon would be required. This is most important - there was no light available anywhere which could now meet the new, legally binding, requirements! Consequently, if the lighthouse keeper stayed, he would be breaking the law!

The rest of you can take it from here to determine what "great legal mind" or "incredibly astute bureaucrat" could be held responsible. What we do have here is yet another example of an age-old law. That is the law of unintended consequences.

[With apologies. But hey! It's the holiday season.]