Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
shadowofedgeworth wrote:
L_J wrote:
it's not whether or not bob puts the sand in the canteen, it's the decisive moment after he pours the [water?] out. at that point, clyde is not a dead man, bob may give up or follow through, he decides if clyde will live or die. even we know bob will follow through, it's the existence of such a moment that matters.
I understand completely, but I'm saying that I believe such a moment literally does not exist in the hypothetical scenario, because it's treated as inevitable that Bob will do what he did. This is what I was talking about, it's impossible to come to the exact same conclusions when thinking about this scenario as if it had occurred in real life as opposed to it being a highly contrived abstraction.
it may be inevitable that bob will put the sand in, but it's just the possibility of such a moment. i'll try to answer in a way that answers your other question too.
alan tries to poison clyde. the poison is dumped out and never reaches clyde
alan unwittingly destroys clyde's water source. the destruction of the water is negated when the poison is dumped out, because this is the point i was talking about. right now the canteen is empty, and bob has the decision of what is or not going into it. even if it is inevitable at this point bob will kill put sand in, it's his choice, not predetermined by alan's poisoning of the canteen.
bob dumps out what he thought was water and puts sand in, trying to kill clyde by dehydration. it works.
and yeah, that was supposed to be water, whoops.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Real men are gray-haired in their 20s.
Gender: None specified
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:03 am
Posts: 566
L_J wrote:
it may be inevitable that bob will put the sand in, but it's just the possibility of such a moment. i'll try to answer in a way that answers your other question too.
alan tries to poison clyde. the poison is dumped out and never reaches clyde
alan unwittingly destroys clyde's water source. the destruction of the water is negated when the poison is dumped out, because this is the point i was talking about. right now the canteen is empty, and bob has the decision of what is or not going into it. even if it is inevitable at this point bob will kill put sand in, it's his choice, not predetermined by alan's poisoning of the canteen.
bob dumps out what he thought was water and puts sand in, trying to kill clyde by dehydration. it works.
alan tries to poison clyde. the poison is dumped out and never reaches clyde
alan unwittingly destroys clyde's water source. the destruction of the water is negated when the poison is dumped out, because this is the point i was talking about. right now the canteen is empty, and bob has the decision of what is or not going into it. even if it is inevitable at this point bob will kill put sand in, it's his choice, not predetermined by alan's poisoning of the canteen.
bob dumps out what he thought was water and puts sand in, trying to kill clyde by dehydration. it works.
So you're saying that once the poisoned water has been dumped out, the ball is no longer in Alan's court, so to speak? Alan's little attempt ends (and fails) there, in a way, and Bob's attempt begins when he dumps in the sand, therefore making Bob culpable for the murder?
If this is what you're saying, we're back to the question, "Did Alan 'knowingly cause' Clyde's death?" I think we are on opposite sides of that question. You say that Alan "unwittingly" destroyed Clyde's water source, and that this was negated (that is to say, made irrelevant) when Bob dumped the water out. I say that Alan's actions (the consequences of which he was fully aware), regardless of Bob's actions, ultimately led to Clyde's death.
I don't think there's anything left to discuss. There are two different ways of looking at this, and now I understand your position much better. (Funnily enough, I think Lynx and FerdieLance had essentially the EXACT SAME discussion on the previous page.) In any case, thank you for your time and patience.
Totally not my sig...
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
and yeah, there's not much to discuss, i think we've been through a couple of circles already. just wait for the jury :P
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
From Lynx and most of the earlier posters, we have the argument that to satisfy actus reus, one has to factually cause a death, and 'poisoning' and 'removing a drinkable water supply' are distinct enough that priority should go to the last actor, Bob, not the first. In other words, Bob was the direct and immediate cause of Clyde's death by dehydration, not poisoning. This is how most people would reason it out, including a substantial number of lawyers.
From shadowedgeworth, Gigahand, me, and maybe one or two others, we have the argument that Alan did, factually, cause Clyde's death. From the moment of Alan's action, the water supply was gone, and Clyde's death was set into motion. Bob's actions didn't really change the course of events - at best, he removed poisoned water. Here, priority goes to the first attempt.
And from L_J and one or two others, we have the argument that Bob's addition of the sand was the key point. By this argument, Bob unintentionally saved Clyde's life by removing the poisoned water... but then committed murder by adding the sand to ensure that Clyde would go out into the desert with a useless canteen.
(This is why the problem is usually given as 'Bob drills a hole in the canteen, and Clyde, somehow, doesn't notice the weight difference.')
This was surprisingly cool! I ran into a lot of points that I didn't think of at all, which means that the next time I give this problem, I'm going to spin the details a little differently.
Thanks to everyone for posting.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Real men are gray-haired in their 20s.
Gender: None specified
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:03 am
Posts: 566
Anyhow, thanks for posting the problem. It sure wore me down at times, but a little mental exercise never hurt nobody!
Totally not my sig...
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Aspiring to Inspire
Gender: Female
Location: Asia
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:57 am
Posts: 458
Now... it'll be interesting if someone gives us a new problem! XD
.: Click on the pictures for links! :.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
Murder, accident, or suicide?
Who was at fault?
Quote:
On 23 March 1994, the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. The decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building intending to commit suicide (he left a note indicating his despondency). As he fell past the ninth floor, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the eighth floor level to protect some window washers and that Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide anyway because of this.
Ordinarily, Dr. Mills continued, a person who sets out to commit suicide ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended. That Opus was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not have changed his mode of death from suicide to homicide. But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been successful caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands. The room on the ninth floor whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by and elderly man and his wife. They were arguing and he was threatening her with the shotgun. He was so upset that, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and pellets went through the window striking Opus. When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B.
When confronted with this charge, the old man and his wife were both adamant that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. The old man said it was his long standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her - therefore, the killing of Opus appeared to be an accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal incident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
There was an exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son, one Ronald Opus, had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a ninth-story window.
Ordinarily, Dr. Mills continued, a person who sets out to commit suicide ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended. That Opus was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not have changed his mode of death from suicide to homicide. But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been successful caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands. The room on the ninth floor whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by and elderly man and his wife. They were arguing and he was threatening her with the shotgun. He was so upset that, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and pellets went through the window striking Opus. When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B.
When confronted with this charge, the old man and his wife were both adamant that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. The old man said it was his long standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her - therefore, the killing of Opus appeared to be an accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal incident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
There was an exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son, one Ronald Opus, had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a ninth-story window.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Get Funky, +10 Pulchritude
Gender: Male
Location: North California
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 1283
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
1000% Knight
Gender: Male
Rank: Moderators
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:06 pm
Posts: 6932
Anyway, if we are strictly speaking of homicide as one person killing another, then F is responsible. However, it was definitely an accident. After all, he never actually used the gun (although I'm sure he was breaking some law nonetheless, but that's not the point) and from my quick-and-dirty calculations he would have half a second to shoot R... probably barely enough time if he knew R would be jumping, but an impossible amount of time if he wasn't expecting it. Anyway, it can probably be pretty obviously proved that R was trying to kill M, given F's habit, the witness who saw R loading the gun, and the motive he had against M. (And who knows? He might have even wrote it in his suicide note xD) I'm assuming the safety net was designed in a way that he couldn't just jump off that too, to this death; otherwise he would have died anyway, if falling eight stories instead of ten. Anyway, F killing R was definitely responsible, and the one ultimately responsible for it was R himself, for loading the gun when he knew of F's habit. If the person who loaded the gun was not R, I think I'd say that they were guilty of murder/manslaughter/something of the sort (of R) and of attempted murder (of M).
(I'm sure this is the usual, basic, on-the-surface answer, so let's see you shoot it down...)
Credit to Evolina for the sig+avatar!
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Aspiring to Inspire
Gender: Female
Location: Asia
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:57 am
Posts: 458
I'd agree to say that the father is accidentally responsible for the son's death, whether he intended to shoot him or not. The other factors don't seem to matter since, ultimately, there was only one fatality. You can't charge a dead person with attempted murder, too.
That's what I think, anyway...
.: Click on the pictures for links! :.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Fancase Maker
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 274
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Aspiring to Inspire
Gender: Female
Location: Asia
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:57 am
Posts: 458
.: Click on the pictures for links! :.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
1000% Knight
Gender: Male
Rank: Moderators
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:06 pm
Posts: 6932
Karmi-Sempai wrote:
He wouldn't have died because of the net, though... Hmm...
Depending on the design of the net, he might have been able to jump off that. (After all, they'd probably expect people to just stay put or climb in through the window, not jump off again...)
Credit to Evolina for the sig+avatar!
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Stop... Strike breaking time.
Gender: Male
Location: My Laptop
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:06 pm
Posts: 35
1st:The son loaded the gun with intent to kill her mother.
2nd:The Victim's parents didn't knew the gun was loaded and when the shotgun was fired the bullet hit the victim.
3rd: Since the victim himself loaded the gun the consequences of HIS act are HIS fault. So he is responisible for his own death
4th:Furthermore, if we are to consider that he was going to kill himself anyway, i say this can be considered suicide.
If any contradictions are found in my theory, i woud appreciate that you would tell me.
I...am...The Nerd...Dont mess with me.
Married to Dawn.
Father of StraightFlame!
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
[Words]
Gender: Male
Location: Right beside you... You looked, didn't you?
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 3940
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Aspiring to Inspire
Gender: Female
Location: Asia
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:57 am
Posts: 458
justis76 wrote:
Murder, albeit accidental. Any way you slice it, the father is the one that shot the boy, all the rest is a bunch of unfortunate coincidences. I wonder if you could sue him for attempted murder of his wife, too. I mean, he pulled the trigger while intending to aim at her...
Indeed; I'd judge this on the immediate cause of death.
.: Click on the pictures for links! :.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
The Real Human Being
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 3481
He was refused the death he wanted and instead was taken by the same trap he had set to kill another.
The father HAD NO INTENTION TO KILL. Therefore we must rule out murder.
This was not a homicide, suicide, nor murder.
It was an accident.
A tragic accident.
And to the "Neither had any idea that the net was installed" would be asinine to believe.
And besides, the victim "jumped" from the roof. He did not "Fall" or "step off"
He would have been too far out to be caught by a net that was built with the intention to catch "Falling" window washers.
He jumped in a direction he knew his parents would see, to spite his mother.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
The Midnight Lurker
Gender: Male
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 409
The son: Attempted murder, attempted suicide
The father: Manslaughter, domestic...abuse...?
The son loaded the gun in an attempt to use his father to kill his mother, which ultimately failed, making it only 'attempted' murder. He jumped off the building with the intention of killing himself, but if the bullets had not hit him, it would have failed as well because of the net, making it only 'attempted' as well. The father may have fired the gun at his wife, missed, and killed his son, but he did not know that it was even loaded, let alone the fact that his son would be falling down the side of the building at that exact moment. Therefore, it was accidental, so it was manslaughter. He should also be accused of domestic abuse (or something worse... I'm not good with law stuff) for aiming a gun at his wife, whether he knew it was loaded or not.
And, if you're going to argue against my claim by saying 'the son is the one who loaded the gun that killed him', which would make it suicide, he wouldn't have known that was going to happen. If you were a gun salesmen and sold a gun (legally, of course) to a man, and later that day was killed by that very same man and gun, would that mean you commited suicide? That makes as much sense as claiming the gun was the murderer, and the man was innocent... Feel free to prove me wrong, though. =D I only want to improve my idea.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Akon tickets, front row, middle section.
Gender: Female
Location: In court, sneaking up on you when you least expect it.
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 1462
No one is guilty of a full blown murder, but Alan would be guilty of attempted murder. Alan was the one who tried to poison Clyde, and failed. Bob spilled the poisoned water, adding some time to Bob's life. Bob could have very well not hated Clyde as much, and just wanted to pull a dirty prank. It wasn't the sand that killed Clyde, it was the lack of water. Clyde could have ventured out to find a river and gotten his water there. It's simple, black and white. Motive is only valid when damage is done.
I didn't realize this case was dropped... oops.
Don't mess with me, or I'll give you a Silence Glaive Surprise!
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Aspiring to Inspire
Gender: Female
Location: Asia
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:57 am
Posts: 458
.: Click on the pictures for links! :.
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
Mipeltaja = the real badass
Gender: Male
Location: That one place. No, not that place, the other place.
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:14 am
Posts: 462
Re: A classic legal problem. What would you do?
ALL GLORY TO... SOMETHING
Gender: Male
Location: Not in a courtroom, that's where.
Rank: Prosecutor
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 914
I'd say both suicide and manslaughter.
Ronald (Person A) loaded his father's (Person B) shotgun hoping that he would kill his wife (Person C). This tells us a couple of things about B's habit. Number one, he doesn't check to see if it's loaded. Number two, he invariably pulls the trigger. This is clear murderous intent on A's part, and reckless endangerment on B's. As previously stated, if one aims to kill one person but inadvertently kills another instead, that person is guilty of murder. A loaded B's gun in an attempt to take C's life through B's habit, which in my eyes is clearly murder. However, A was shot instead, making this murder of oneself, i.e. suicide. B's recklessness nonetheless took a life. Hence the manslaughter charge.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 31 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed