You win this time Paulg!


But seriously, I thought we were talking about liability for the death. For all we know he could have bought the everclear with counterfeited money too.

Ok, so if a wife says, "drink this, its arsenic" and her husband does, would that constitute as murder?

I don't think the same could be said about Tylenol. Whether a substance is considered dangerous in any amount should weigh in to some degree imo.

 

-----signature-----

The husband's awareness of what he's taking is important. Many people don't know that 12 grams of acetaminophen can kill you (especially if you're an alcoholic). I used the example because it is another substance (like alcohol) that the recipient may not recognize as dangerous.

The situation in the OP is obviously different because the guy is addicted to alcohol, and is probably abusing it with knowledge of the effects thereof, whereas people don't usually become addicted to Tylenol. But the risks of both could be miscalculated by the recipient of such a gift.

 

-----signature-----

Only if she intends to kill him and he is compelled to do it for some reason or drinks it because she knows he doesn't know what arsenic is.


The exact same thing is true with tylenol. In fact giving someone a lethal dose of tylenol with the intent to kill them is probably more likely to be murder because the person is less likely to know the effects.

Yeah, I agree he should know whats in it, and I would argue that the legality of the substance plays into that. If he doesn't know its illegal, for instance, he might assume that its safer than it really is. The seller would then assume the responsibility for the harmful impurities which may have caused the liver failure.

Imagine lacing cocaine with rat poison, if it becomes fatal, the police go after those guys for murder. If you sell a bad batch of something, anything really, especially with the intent to kill or harm, you will be charged for the death of that person and anyone else who fell victim to it.

If its illegal, the question I would have then is how was it presented to the victim? Did he say, I picked this up in Georgia its illegal here? Or did he say, here man, I bought you some kick ass alcohol, bottoms up? The difference there could mean the difference between guilt and innocence if I'm on a jury.

 

-----signature-----

Actually I wonder if Ed gave the brother Tylenol as well, in order to hasten the inevitable conclusion. Ed would have known the dangers of tylenol with an alcoholic.

Also, he absolutely gave him the everclear when the guy was already drunk in addition to when he was sober. The brother-in-law would not have drank himself to death so rapidly on his own (but i guess that might be difficult to prove in court).

 

-----signature-----

tylenol and alcohol are a dangerous mix ... fast liver death from that.

its a given that if there was a life insurance policy and the person giving alcohol/tylenol benefitted from that policy, then a murder investigation would be under way.

That's getting pretty close to murder IMO. Giving an already drunk alcoholic more to drink - with the intent he kill himself through overdrink - is basically compulsion because everyone knwos an already drunk alcoholic can't refuse alcohol.

I remember the case of one woman basically trolling a girl enough until she committed suicide. I think that's somewhat similar to this question.

 

-----signature-----

Apology accepted. To be fair, I was merely attacking the problem from another angle. My superior brain works in mysterious ways. And no, I won't go out with you.


Edit: confused my nitpickers

 

-----signature-----