1. #1

    Ronald Opus - Morals

    So during my philosophy class, we were presented with this case. There were many varying views. Please refrain from bringing legality into this - Morals only. There are 7 parts to this case. For every part and every character in each part, tell whether you believe that they are morally correct or incorrect and WHY. Comment WHILE you are reading each part so you DON'T CHEAT your own morals.


    Part 1
    On March 23, 1994 a medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun. Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide. (He left a note indicating his despondency.) As he passed the 9th floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers, and that the decedent would most likely not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.




























    Part 2
    Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicide intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide, but the fact that his suicide intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.


























    Part 3
    Further investigation led to the discovery that the room on the 9th floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking the decedent.
























    Part 4
    When one intends to kill subject A, but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.

























    Part 5
    But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son's financial support, and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.


























    Part 6
    Now comes the exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son, one Ronald Opus, had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a 9th story window.
























    Part 7
    The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.





    P.S. - The story was originally an example invented by Don Harper Mills, then the past president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, which he presented at a banquet in 1987. THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL.
    Last edited by Chippedice; 2011-04-18 at 06:59 AM. Reason: Sorry for all the spaces =P. didnt want people sneak peaking at the next part of the case.

  2. #2
    Deleted
    So I need to comment this only from my moral point per parts? Ok, let's try.

    Part 1: It doesn't matter if he intended to commit suicide, the net would have saved him, therefor I consider he was killed.
    In the event that he wouldn't have been shot and was saved by the net, he could have went to a specialist in such problems and be determined to stop. Even if I consider suicide isn't an option, I don't know his motifs so won't comment though on his attempt of suicide.

    Part 2: Correct, I agree with the medical examiner. Of course the guy could have still jumped from the net, but in the end he might have realized he was an idiot and stopped.

    Part 3: So an old man was trying to shoot his wife? That guy has problems. Not sure if prison is an option depending on how old he is. If he's very old, like 80+, a mental institution would be more fitting. Seems the fact he missed saved his wife permanently then, now at least she won't have to worry about her idiot husband trying to kill her.

    Part 4: Oh yes, so when I get into an argument I take my shotgun out! I return to my previous statement, mental institution for this person. Threatening someone with a shotgun when you are in an argument... there's some sick people out there. I don't even know what to think, if he was saying the truth or only said that to have the option to shoot the wife another time.

    Part 5: Ok, so the son is guilty of the murder. However the old man still needs to go to a mental institution. Or at least divorce, since he has some problems. Plus, even not knowing, the old man is an accomplice, because of the fact he threatened his wife with a shotgun, you don't do these things.

    Part 6: nice played... so in the end the son is guilty of his own death in this case, but he was helped unknowinglly by his father who was a nutcase and lucck/bad luck.

    Part 7: Yes, I understand. However the old man still belongs to a mental institution. Or at least divorce, you don't just threaten your wife with a shotgun, loaded or not. It's tehnically a suicide but that doesn't mean the old man should walk knowing he threatened his wife with a shotgun. I don't care if it was loaded or not, only crazy people do that.

    So there's my conclusion: the son commited suicide but not how he wanted to. Still the old man can't remain in a relation with the old lady, it's like a preview of things to come threatening her with a shotgun. Aren't there laws against this?

  3. #3
    Dont have time to fully reply right now but made a interesting read thanks.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •