No, you're not, BB. I think it's worded like that deliberately. There isn't a reason to include the word "shoots" since it would mean the same thing without that word. That leads me to think that's our clue and Luc didn't include "a weapon" (or something like that) so it might be a play off that.
I believe that it would be a state crime in whatever state the shooter was standing as opposed to it being in California where the victim fell. If somehow that would not work out, I am sure they would find a way to charge it federally.
So, HE shoots and kills a man. But HIS killer was never in California. Guilty or not, HE'S never going to trial because HE'S dead.
Yes. If the killing took place on or near the California State line, the killer could simply shoot across the state line from a neighboring State and still be guilty. How's that?
Yes, sort of. There was a movie a few years back that was based loosely on this premise. The location of the movie was indeed a real lodge that straddled the California Nevada border, and though that particular lodge is no longer around, there is indeed a casino there. So technically speaking, this location would probably be the most likely place a scenario like this could emerge. Now I admit, I'm having a serious brain fart where I cannot recall the title of this movie. If anyone else knows what movie I'm talking about, please chip in. The movie came out in the 2000's.
Okay, I finally found the name of the movie: Bad Times at the El Royale. From Wiki: Bad Times at the El Royale is a 2018 American neo-noir thriller film written, directed, and produced by Drew Goddard. It stars an ensemble cast consisting of Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Dakota Johnson, Jon Hamm, Cailee Spaeny, Lewis Pullman, and Chris Hemsworth. The plot centers on six strangers and an employee at the El Royale, a hotel located along the California–Nevada border, who arrive with dark personal secrets that eventually intersect on a fateful night in the late 1960s. The film explores themes on morality, faith, and redemption, with the state border and other visualizations representing the concept of right and wrong.
Since murder is illegal in every single state, the answer is yes. The police agencies just work together. This is not a new question. You would have a better question if it involved a law that made something illegal in one state while the law in the other state made it legal.
Well, it's quite clear. The man A kills a man B in California, and then the man A leaves that state and goes somewhere else, where he gets killed. The first killing was in self-defence so he's not guilty.
You get the gist of this experiment. I like your thinking this out in a manner that was not what I was thinking originally but fits nicely within the parameters of the riddle.
Yes, the high criminality of crossing state lines! My vapors! My vapors! Oh, dear. You're right. What a travesty. Please, don't bring it up again. It's too much to bear!
