Braingle: Forums: Teasers Without Answers

Public Forums >> Teasers Without Answers >>

Forum Rules View Watchlist Post Reply

Who's guilty?

Author

Message

HarryPutter

Music ISN'T my life
Posts: 1978

Posted: 11:53PM Aug 10, 2009

I stumbled upon this problem, and I thought it was kind of interesting.

At a desert oasis, A and B decide independently to murder C. A poisons C's canteen, and later B punches a hole in it. C dies of thirst. Who killed him?

A argues that C never drank the poison. B claims that he only deprived C of poisoned water. They're both right, but still C is dead. Who's guilty?

Bow to my straw man

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

nogoodnames

Posts: 532

Posted: 12:15AM Aug 11, 2009

Good question. Well personally I think that B killed C because he killed C by punching a hole in C's canteen which in turn made C die of thirst, If B hadn't done that then A would have killed C by poisoning him.

Have you met all the requirements to be a QuizMaster? Would you like to help the Braingle community just that little bit more? If you answered yes to both of them you should become a QuizMaster. Some categories are desperate for help.

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

Shadows

Posts: 4173

Posted: 10:56AM Aug 11, 2009

Since they decided independently to murder C, I think B killed him. A's plan didn't work, and B's did.

Walk away as if I don't care.

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

mir77

Posts: 449

Posted: 02:36PM Aug 11, 2009

wow, hard one

if A didn't put poisoin in C's canteen, then B wouldn't have punched a hole in it. B was trying to protect C, so it was really A who killed C.

Hey Ltstar! What's up Paladin? Hi reggie! Sup, frostyDCH? Hello Hol77! hey kubesh! HEYA GYMBOY09! hiya pokegirl09! i added all my dearest friends! HELLO MY FRIENDS!!! :-)

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

Shadows

Posts: 4173

Posted: 04:00PM Aug 11, 2009

Actually, they decided INDEPENDENTLY (I guess italicising isn't enough) to murder C. Therefore, B would've punched a hole in the canteen anyway.

Walk away as if I don't care.

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

mir77

Posts: 449

Posted: 06:00PM Aug 12, 2009

now i'm confused

Hey Ltstar! What's up Paladin? Hi reggie! Sup, frostyDCH? Hello Hol77! hey kubesh! HEYA GYMBOY09! hiya pokegirl09! i added all my dearest friends! HELLO MY FRIENDS!!! :-)

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

stephiesd

Posts: 2744

Posted: 06:48PM Aug 12, 2009

Okay. Let me try to clarify.

B intended to murder C by dehydrating him.
He did not know that C's canteen was poisoned.

B also didn't know that A wanted to kill C.
And A didn't know that B wanted to kill C.

So A poisoned C's canteen not knowing that B planned to put a hole through it.

And to answer the original question, B murdered C.

Firstly because it wasn't A's actions that brought about C's death, it was B's.
Secondly, unless it's the kind of poison that doesn't dissipate, there really would be no proof at all that A poisoned C.

I've watched enough court shows to know that that's just how it goes.
Not sure about my second point. I've heard the science in those shows is often inaccurate.

But the fact that A only intended to kill C doesn't make A guilty.
Yes, A would have been guilty if B had not acted, but B's action counteracted A's attempt.
So B is at fault here, not A.

Messed up, I know.

But, really, it's C's own fault that he's dead.
After all, who doesn't notice a hole in their canteen???
And there was obviously a water source by which to fill the canteens, so C should have just drunk directly from there.

It takes two to make a leader but one has to follow.

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

grilledcheese

Posts: 6441

Posted: 02:08AM Aug 13, 2009

If he died of thirst because of B... then it's B's fault.

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

gap6297

Posts: 47

Posted: 03:39PM Aug 22, 2009

B killed and saved C at the same time.
If he hadn't done what he did, C still would have died.
Poor C is doomed anyway.

".......and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his own honor and that of his country." William B. Travis

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

Paladin

Back to the front!!!
Posts: 6633

Posted: 09:49PM Aug 22, 2009

From a legal standpoint, both A and B committed crimes. Both are guilty of attempted murder, except B succeeded.

However, as B has already claimed he knew the canteen was poisoned (how did he know this?), a simple test of the contents remaining in the canteen (small traces) will show that the canteen was, indeed, poisoned, and a good lawyer could argue that B drained the canteen in an attempt to keep C from being poisoned.

Also, it would take some pretty compelling arguments to show that putting a hole in someone's canteen was intentional murder (of cource, this depends on the circumstances.) I think at worst, B would be charged with manslaughter and A would be charged with attempted murder either way.

As for who killed C, that would be dehydration caused by B's actions... but were there no other sources of hydration?

"The greatest cause of unhappiness in the world today is trading what we want most for what we want now."

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

Shadows

Posts: 4173

Posted: 10:42PM Aug 22, 2009

HarryPutter wrote:

I change my mind. There are always springs at a desert oasis. C's stupidity killed him.

Walk away as if I don't care.

View Profile Send PM Visit Wiki

morpheus25