Make Me Laugh!

[Ibro2g]

Isnt it obvious

[IBB]

Respond to DB puzzle.

M not a lawyer; I think fail plan/intention to kill dont constitute a murder. So A is not the muderer

B's action depends on his intention. If the reason for puncturing the water container was to kill C with thirst then B is the muderer. But if it was to put C into the misery of thirst then is not murder

My opinion

[bakangizo]

IBB:  It is stated that B also wanted to kill C. So B's the murderer.

[HUSNAA]

There are three possible ways to look at this.
The first way is to consider A and B as equally sharing in the blame for the murder of C, because C had no way out which ever way u look at it. If he had the water, and he drank it, he would have died anyway.
The second way to look at it is to give A the greater share of the blame. This is because there is always a chance that even though B had slit the water sack and the water leaked out, there is always the possibility that C might come across an oasis, or a caravan of ppl or some other way so that he could get another supply of water. So in effect B's method can be considered as second degree murder, because there is the a slim chance that C may not have died. However with A, there is no second chance; the moment C drinks the water, he is gone.
The third way to look at it is that both A and B have cut their noses to spite their faces. We could say that both A and B are the most brainless morons alive. Only C had water. So as it is implied that they are travelling together, then C's water becomes the source of water for all three. A  has poisoned  the water. Now since A knows that the water is poisoned, he wont drink it and therefore he will very likely die of thirst also. Since A did not tell B  that he had poisoned the water (if he had told him, they would have been co conspirators in A's plan and B would have had no need to slit the sack open), then there is a likelihood that B will die if he drank the water. Also its a matter of who drinks the water first, between B or C as none of them know its poisoned. If C drinks the water first, and dies, then B wont drink it and will likely die of thirst as well. If B drinks the water first, then C wont drink it seeing that B has died and he will likely die of thirst also.
Now since B went and slit the water sack and the poisoned water leaked out, it meant that they were saved from one form of death only to be confronted by another. C reportedly died after three days, so are A and B in any better shape than C? Did he die first? Maybe he didnt; maybe one or both of the other two perished before him. We are not told, but  we must assume that what ever condition that C found himself in shortly before his demise, A and B must have suffered it as well. Therefore this is a case of second degree murder (by B) attempted murder (by A)  manslaughter (by B) attempted manslaughter (by A) and unintentional suicide (by B).

[bakangizo]

Ana wata, ga wata. Hajia ko ke lauya ce? Ai maimakon solution kin kara rikirkita lamarin.

[Dan-Borno]

good scenario auntyn muhsin. 
however, the cause of the death of C is "thirst"
even though thirst is not a likely probable cause of death
which B surely knows that, hence his intention to leak
out the water so that they will only suffer for a while.
so, i dont think C will be liable for any offence since the
mere liking of the water can not constitute a case of an
intention to kill.

As for A, the poisoned water was not used by either
C or B, though he intended to kill C and fully knowing that
posining the water will result to death.  however, C did not
drink the water ko? and he did not confide in anyone of him
contaminating the water with poisonous thing.

[waduz]

Well, all have tried from the puzzler DBN to all the others. The general believe in law, however, is that all cases have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Penal Code, define crimes and the ingredients of proving such crimes after committing them. Let us take culpable homicide or murder, for instance: The following are needed to prove it before a conviction is earned:

1. Medical report.

This will prove the kind of death the victim suffered. From knife, bullets, hitting with wooden stick, suffocation, poisoning and, or natural wounds, the medical report will tremendously help the court to reach a verdict.

2. Weapon used:

The weapon used in committing murder should be tendered in court so that it can be accepted as an exhibit. In case of a knife wound that caused death, the blood sample must match the one on the victim. This will be compared and analyzed by a forensic science laboratory.

3. Direct evidence:

That is the evidence adduced by an eye witness. This kind of evidence is like this, "....I was sitting down with the late musa when an arguement ensued between him and garba. I saw garba draw out a knife and stabbed him three times in the stomach........" This is the kind of testimony that is better than circumstancial evidence.

4. Motive:

The court needs to prove the motive behind the murder. It could be in self defence, provocation, jealousy etc.

Copse:

For identification and post mortem purposes.


The scenerio given by DBN is ofcourse a story as he said. But the question to ask is, how did we know that it was B who punctured C's water container? Why A hates C? What DBN means by intention to kill is known as attempted murder.   

If you are interested, the ingredients of proving thefts will follow......... ;D 

[Hafsy_Lady]

Okwo hhhmmmm ashe we have lawyers in the forum.... very impressed i must say  :) make i take my leg comot....ummita were u de you should be here... Lawyers in action.

[IBB]

good scenario auntyn muhsin. 
however, the cause of the death of C is "thirst"
even though thirst is not a likely probable cause of death
which B surely knows that, hence his intention to leak
out the water so that they will only suffer for a while.
so, i dont think C will be liable for any offence since the
mere liking of the water can not constitute a case of an
intention to kill.

As for A, the poisoned water was not used by either
C or B, though he intended to kill C and fully knowing that
posining the water will result to death.  however, C did not
drink the water ko? and he did not confide in anyone of him
contaminating the water with poisonous thing.

Yeah, Who is the murderer then oga DB?

[IBB]

Ansar tayi wuya ne?

[*~MuDa~*]

Okwo hhhmmmm ashe we have lawyers in the forum.... very impressed i must say  :) make i take my leg comot....ummita were u de you should be here... Lawyers in action.

Exactly...lol...Hafsy kenan, you know how to Poison someones water well enough...lol! ;D ;D ;D

[Dan-Borno]

Ansar tayi wuya ne?

we have offered enough for the puzzle!!!!

[HUSNAA]

good scenario auntyn muhsin. 
however, the cause of the death of C is "thirst"
even though thirst is not a likely probable cause of death
which B surely knows that, hence his intention to leak
out the water so that they will only suffer for a while.
so, i dont think C will be liable for any offence since the
mere liking of the water can not constitute a case of an
intention to kill.

Dan Borno you are contradicting yourself. You initially wrote that B wanted to kill C, so he made a hole in the water sack and the water spilled out. Now you are saying that B knows that thirst can not be a probable cause of death that is why he slit the waterskin/sack.. he only wanted them to suffer for a while.
Well anyway what ever the case, C died as a result and now its a clear case of manslaughter if the killing was unintentional as u like to put it.
As for A, the mere fact that he escaped being a murderer does not exculpate him from guilt of attempted murder!
Kana so kayi mana irin ta 'yar adua da janar  Buhari ko? If u cant beat 'em, join em!! (wagging finger and shaking head at DB.. ) tsk tsk tsk..dont do it!!

[Dan-Borno]

abin ma da biyu ne? bamu muka kar zomon ba ai,
sai kuje kuyi appeal against decision na tribunal.

dont forget auntyn muhsin, the scenario is still
a puzzle, i only brought it here but i am not the
inventor, i also participate not based on the story
i gave, but from my perception and thinking.

my argument in the puzzle is that i doubt if by denying
a person water it will lead to death!

[Dan-Borno]

how about this joke mada?


A yuppie opened the door of his BMW, when suddenly a car came along
and hit the door, ripping it off completely. When the police arrived
at the scene, the yuppie was complaining bitterly about the damage
to his precious BMW.
"Officer, look what they've done to my Beeeeemer!!!", he whined.
"You yuppies are so materialistic, you make me sick!!!", retorted
the officer. "You're so worried about your stupid BMW, that you
didn't even notice that your left arm was ripped off!!!"
Oh my gaaawd...," replied the yuppie, finally noticing the bloody
left shoulder where his arm once was, "Where's my Rolex?!!!!!"