[tagnostic]

just ran across this,
who is guilty and of what?

this is known as Smullyan's Paradox

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?

[rzm61]

They both are for the intentions of killing C?
However C technically killed himself, because come on man...get some fucking water.

[Tsar Phalanxia]

They both are for the intentions of killing C?


I would very much like it if Michael Jackson dies. Oh, Michael Jackson is dead! Does that mean I murdered him?

[rzm61]

I would very much like it if Michael Jackson dies. Oh, Michael Jackson is dead! Does that mean I murdered him?

Horrible counter argument dude.

[tagnostic]

I'd call them both guilty of murder,
they both made an active and plausible
attempt to end his life with malice
it was serendipity that neither was
successful, although a good case
could be made for the one who
poured out the water being the
direct proximate cause

[rzm61]

Exactly.
I still blame C though for being an idiot and not seeking water.

[tagnostic]

he was looking for
an evian when he
was overcome
could have
settled
for tap

[rzm61]

What about copper state tap? :D