Who killed C?

Three thirsty travellers, A, B & C, are crossing the desert. Both A and B detest C and, quite independently, decide to end his life.

In the dead of night when B and C are asleep, A opens C’s partly-filled water flask and pours poison into it. He then sneaks off back to sleep.

Minutes later, when A and C are asleep, B (unaware of A’s action) punches holes in C’s flask so that the contents leak out completely.

The next day, C, finding his flask empty, dies of dehydration in the heat.

Who is responsible for C’s death? Neither A nor B? One or the other? Or both?

C is responsible for his own death. If C had a lick of sense C would not have gotten his companions to hating him. When survival is on the line you be a good companion or a carcass.

Why would A be guilty in all this? He had neither direct nor an indirect role in C’s cause of death. B, on the other hand, killed C indirectly. You (if you were his lawyer) could say B was only trying to save C from poisoning, but this still makes him guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and A still not guilty of any murder. A is however guilty of attempted murder.

Both A & B are morally complicit, but only B is legally liable since the law doesn’t take intent into account (except for conspiracy or complicity). Same as if they’d both shot him at the same time but only one’s bullet caused a lethal injury.

That is so beautifully put and so early on in the post… it is no fun when the answer comes out so quickly… :smiley:

But at the same I suspect that there is more to this riddle than just this???

How does someone die of dehydration anyway?

Well, both A and B harbored the intention of killing C, which is surely a bad thing. They even acted in ways to fulfill their intention. However, neither A nor B actually killed C. The lack of drink did. If anything, A and B at worst deprived C only of a means of prolonging his life. Nature did the killing - even though nature lacked the intention.

to answer mmm, you die painfully of dehydration, its no fun at all, unlike freezing to death. I have had heat stroke, you wish were were dead when it hits you fully.

If A and B were intelligent at all they just would have confiscated Cs water tied him up and left him to die or drain his blood, for the moisture. Thus they would be ensured of surviving the ordeal, as it was they probably died too. Not too smart to waste water in the desert :laughing:

of course C++ killed C

-Imp

Both A and B committed actions that society would want to discourage, therefore they are both guilty and should both be punished.

A is responsible.

Think of it in the sense that all 3 of them knew about the poison, and in order to make things less awkward decide not to kill him.

At this point C would empty his canteen, knowing he would die after drinking it, and in doing so would prolong his life and at least give him the chance to survive

B unknowingly did C a favor by emptying the contents.

C’s water was gone the moment the poison entered the water, unless C could have found more water.

A beat B to the punch. (maybe it was fruit punch :-k )

but you could make an attempted murder case against B.

Murder cases should be made against them both, they both did things that we would not want done in the future.

i would want my canteen emptied of poison… that’s tinkerbell gangsta shiet.

think like a csi.

Er, no. The man emptying the canteen didn’t know that it was filled with poison, so his act was not “I am emptying this canteen of the poisoned water,” but just “I am emptying this canteen of all of C’s water”. The different intents make them different acts, and the act committed in this situation should obviously be punished.

it makes the difference between murder, manslaughter, or attempted murder and a linfe prolonging…

I killed C, with an F, in the A.

Why would you want it emptied of poison? Theres always a small chance a person will survive even an epic poisoning, no chance to live in the desert without water.

As in theres a small chance the water would be worth somthing even with the poison.

I would not sweat punishing A and B, they died too. You actually have to have brains to cross a desert and survive… For instance they obviously did not cross it at night, which is rule number one. Rule number two; drink your water do not ration it. Rule number three, do not waste fluids.
Crossing a desert during the day, rationing your water and wasting it or body fluids is certain death. The dumbasses punished themselves. :laughing:

I would say that all three A, B and C are responsible for C’s death.

[A] can be said to share moral responsible for C’s death by reason of perpetuating the hatred of both himself and B for C. A is not “legally” responsible for C’s death, but since he had “intent” in his mind to kill C with poison, there is moral responsibility.

[B] also has shared moral responsibility for C’s death for perpetuating that hatred, even though he inadvertently leaked out the contents of the poison, because he still had intent to kill C by dehydration. I would say that legally [B] is responsible for C’s death.

And finally, I would say that [C] also shares the responsibility for his own death since in the desert, the most important thing is water and he failed to guard his water flask.

Who is responsible for C’s death then. Morally, all three.
Legally, I’d say B.
And ultimately C, by a lack of responsibility to himself.

Kriswest is a fucking true-blue genius. She saw through the proximal situation, and to the root cause.