Help solve two arguments!

TomandJerry · Apr 9, 2015

Argument one is:

Two men standing in two different countries, but the countries are next to each other, one man shoots across the boarder and kills the man, both police forces from both countries arrive at the same time, who takes charge of the investigation, and in which country is the man put on trial in?

Argument two:

A captain goes down with his ship knowing he will die, is this an act of suicide or more of an act of respect and tradition?

GingerBeerMan · Apr 9, 2015

TomandJerry said:
Argument one is:

Two men standing in two different countries, but the countries are next to each other, one man shoots across the boarder and kills the man, both police forces from both countries arrive at the same time, who takes charge of the investigation, and in which country is the man put on trial in?

Argument two:

A captain goes down with his ship knowing he will die, is this an act of suicide or more of an act of respect and tradition?

Not sure about 1. Two is clear cut for me though, if there are passengers on board the captain should stay. If the captain can get off and everyone else is already off he should go. "Going down with the ship" just means he's the last one off, if he did chose to die it would be assumed there was no way to get off as he sacrificed the last spot for a passenger.

Hampster Gull · Apr 9, 2015

On one, if it is an either or question , then for me the country where the man is shot

jimbob5 · Apr 9, 2015

GingerBeerMan said:
Not sure about 1. Two is clear cut for me though, if there are passengers on board the captain should stay. If the captain can get off and everyone else is already off he should go. "Going down with the ship" just means he's the last one off, if he did chose to die it would be assumed there was no way to get off as he sacrificed the last spot for a passenger.

1. The police of the country where the chap shot from should take charge. That is the country where the crime was committed.
2 is similar to a soldier sacrificing his life to save his team. It's pretty insulting to call it an act of suicide!

Guy Fawkes · Apr 9, 2015

TomandJerry said:
Argument one is:

Two men standing in two different countries, but the countries are next to each other, one man shoots across the boarder and kills the man, both police forces from both countries arrive at the same time, who takes charge of the investigation, and in which country is the man put on trial in?

I would have thought that a trial would be held in the country the victim died in, so thats where the crime was and therefore where he should face justice however it's not that simple - do the 2 countries have an extradiction treaty between them? if not, then the killer may never face trial.

Argument two:

A captain goes down with his ship knowing he will die, is this an act of suicide or more of an act of respect and tradition?

If he can get away to safety but decides to stay, then technically i would have said it was an act of suicide by the captain. If there weren't enough lifeboats to rescue everyone onboard then it's more of a heroic act of selfless sacrifice.

TomandJerry · Apr 9, 2015

Guy Fawkes said:
I would have thought that a trial would be held in the country the victim died in, so thats where the crime was and therefore where he should face justice however it's not that simple - do the 2 countries have an extradiction treaty between them? if not, then the killer may never face trial.

If he can get away to safety but decides to stay, then technically i would have said it was an act of suicide by the captain. If there weren't enough lifeboats to rescue everyone onboard then it's more of a heroic act of selfless sacrifice.

The captain is the last man on his sinking ship, yet he decides to stay on and go down with it

beorhthelm · Apr 9, 2015

case 1, the murder occurs in country where the man is dead. that is where the evidence is, where the investgation and trial would be. they may have to apply for extradition. its not different to say leaving poison or a booby trap for someone and leaving the country.

Everest · Apr 9, 2015

It would have been better if the gunman had got on the ship then shot the captain.
Would save the hassle of different answers.

Guy Fawkes · Apr 9, 2015

TomandJerry said:
Argument one is:

Two men standing in two different countries, but the countries are next to each other, one man shoots across the boarder and kills the man, both police forces from both countries arrive at the same time, who takes charge of the investigation, and in which country is the man put on trial in?

Interpol ?

It's likely to be a joint investigation by both forces as it's unlikely one force will have any jurisdiction in the other's country (unable to arrest, etc).

It also depends on if they would be prepared to co-operate or are hostile to each other. - USA / Canada is far more likely to be handled through co-operation compared to North and South Korea.

The question doesn't say if they are at war with each other at the time too.

jimbob5 · Apr 9, 2015

Guy Fawkes said:
Interpol ?

It's likely to be a joint investigation by both forces as it's unlikely one force will have any jurisdiction in the other's country (unable to arrest, etc).

It also depends on if they would be prepared to co-operate or are hostile to each other. - USA / Canada is far more likely to be handled through co-operation compared to North and South Korea.

The question doesn't say if they are at war with each other at the time too.

If one soldier killed another soldier in war, I's suggest it would not be a police matter!

Guy Fawkes · Apr 9, 2015

TomandJerry said:
The captain is the last man on his sinking ship, yet he decides to stay on and go down with it

So as i said, if there was a way for him to escape safely it's got to be suicide (unless it's something like a paddle boat on a lake and he can wade to safety after it's sunk) because there was no reason for him to die.

If there wasn't enoguh room to save everyone on board and he decides to sacrifice his life for someone else then it's a noble gesture but whether it's suicide would depend on whether he would have given himself a chance to be saved or not (if he'd locked himself in his cabin or wheel house where he would get taken to the bottom then he has chosen to end his life (hence suicide) but if he is somewhere on board as it finally sinks but where he may later get picked up from the sea but dies before rescue then it's not suicide. The result would depend on whether he give himself any chance of survival

Guy Fawkes · Apr 9, 2015

jimbob5 said:
If one soldier killed another soldier in war, I's suggest it would not be a police matter!

It could be the military police.

It could also be in peaceful times but a random pot shot across the border at other guard posts (which i believe occasionally happens between North and South Korea to serve as a reminder that they are there)

jimbob5 · Apr 9, 2015

Guy Fawkes said:
So as i said, if there was a way for him to escape safely it's got to be suicide (unless it's something like a paddle boat on a lake and he can wade to safety after it's sunk) because there was no reason for him to die.

If there wasn't enoguh room to save everyone on board and he decides to sacrifice his life for someone else then it's a noble gesture but whether it's suicide would depend on whether he would have given himself a chance to be saved or not (if he'd locked himself in his cabin or wheel house where he would get taken to the bottom then he has chosen to end his life (hence suicide) but if he is somewhere on board as it finally sinks but where he may later get picked up from the sea but dies before rescue then it's not suicide. The result would depend on whether he give himself any chance of survival

I'm assuming he is dying to allow others to live. You could complicate it by saying he had accidentally eaten deadly poison and/or he had terminal cancer etc etc but it's not big or clever.

Guy Fawkes · Apr 9, 2015

jimbob5 said:
I'm assuming he is dying to allow others to live. You could complicate it by saying he had accidentally eaten deadly poison and/or he had terminal cancer etc etc but it's not big or clever.

So if he dies in order to save others aboard becuase he has no means to escape to safety (not enough lifeboats) then it's probably corporate manslaughter.

In WW2, when ships were torpedoed, the crew would abandon ship and that included the captain if there was no way of saving the vessel, even if ther were no lifeboats, etc. - So why would someone stay aboard if they didn't have to unless they were doing so to let themself die? especially if jumping into the sea offered them even the slimmest chance of survival?

jimbob5 · Apr 9, 2015

Guy Fawkes said:
So if he dies in order to save others aboard becuase he has no means to escape to safety (not enough lifeboats) then it's probably corporate manslaughter.

In WW2, when ships were torpedoed, the crew would abandon ship and that included the captain if there was no way of saving the vessel, even if ther were no lifeboats, etc. - So why would someone stay aboard if they didn't have to unless they were doing so to let themself die? especially if jumping into the sea offered them even the slimmest chance of survival?

Because someone had planted a nuclear bomb on the ship and he was the only person capable of defusing it to stop it blowing up the world so he stayed on to try and save the world.

Ken Livingstone Seagull · Apr 9, 2015

Relating the first question to the soccer field:
Goalie is holding the ball just inside his penalty area and is preparing to make a clearance.
Oppo striker is standing 5 yards away outside the area, not interfering.
Goalie luzzes the ball at striker's head, felling him in a distinctly unsportsmanlike manner.
Is it a penalty?
Or a direct or indirect kick from the point outside the area where the ball felled the striker?
Answer that correctly (it's covered by the Rules of Footy) and I think we can all agree that the answer will apply to the original question.
QED.

jimbob5 · Apr 9, 2015

Ken Livingstone Seagull said:
Relating the first question to the soccer field:
Goalie is holding the ball just inside his penalty area and is preparing to make a clearance.
Oppo striker is standing 5 yards away outside the area, not interfering.
Goalie luzzes the ball at striker's head, felling him in a distinctly unsportsmanlike manner.
Is it a penalty?
Or a direct or indirect kick from the point outside the area where the ball felled the striker?
Answer that correctly (it's covered by the Rules of Footy) and I think we can all agree that the answer will apply to the original question.
QED.

send keeper off and have a drop ball?

Ken Livingstone Seagull · Apr 10, 2015

jimbob5 said:
send keeper off and have a drop ball?

By all means send the keeper off for Violent conduct.

However try again with the restart. It's not a drop ball.

Guy Fawkes · Apr 10, 2015

Ken Livingstone Seagull said:
Relating the first question to the soccer field:
Goalie is holding the ball just inside his penalty area and is preparing to make a clearance.
Oppo striker is standing 5 yards away outside the area, not interfering.
Goalie luzzes the ball at striker's head, felling him in a distinctly unsportsmanlike manner.
Is it a penalty?
Or a direct or indirect kick from the point outside the area where the ball felled the striker?
Answer that correctly (it's covered by the Rules of Footy) and I think we can all agree that the answer will apply to the original question.
QED.

So it involves having 2 Police forces turn up at the same time to investigate the incident, take statements, etc.?.. (one from each of the areas / towns/ counties / countries that the teams each represent) and deciding which FA will hold the hearing?

jimbob5 · Apr 10, 2015

Ken Livingstone Seagull said:
By all means send the keeper off for Violent conduct.

However try again with the restart. It's not a drop ball.

I mean, although he uses the ball as a weapon, it could be said to be an off the ball incident so it seems illogical to give a pen.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Help solve two arguments!

Well-known member

3-0

New member

Banned

The voice of treason

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Me

The voice of treason

Banned

The voice of treason

The voice of treason

Banned

The voice of treason

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

The voice of treason

Banned

Share this page