Jump to content

Grissom's question


surfy_sah
 Share

Recommended Posts

In Mike's signeture is the following Gil quote from ermmmm one of the eps from season 1-5 :P

 

 

Gil Grissom: A, B, C, D or all of the above. Standoff with the police -- guy gets shot in the chest, runs back into his burning house inhaling smoke as he goes. The roof collapses the air conditioning unit falls on his head, he dies. What killed him?

 

 

Rach (aka Smaug) has just been talking about this in the Trivia thread but it reminded me that I was meant to post the question up for debate and asked Mike if I could nick it way back earlier today! actually about 5hours ago :headscratch:

 

so what do you think?

 

on screen Gil never actually reveals the answer ;)

 

 

Luv sah xx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also - seeing as this is trivia:

 

In Mike's sig is a Gil quote Gil Grissom: A, B, C, D or all of the above. Standoff with the police -- guy gets shot in the chest, runs back into his burning house inhaling smoke as he goes. The roof collapses the air conditioning unit falls on his head, he dies. What killed him?

 

I know the answer :P

 

It wasn't the shot to the chest - because he didn't die.

Or the smoke - still not dead.

The roof collapses - it wasn't the roof on him but he only died ONCE the A.C unit hit him.

 

So the one thing that actually cut his life short, made him kick the bucket, eat dust, snuff the candle was the A.C unit.

 

:headscratch:

 

Yes, Mike. That has been bugging me EVER SINCE I read your sig.

916890[/snapback]

 

There!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I'm going to be pondering this one all day. My first answer, stupidity! Why the heck did he run back into a burning building.

 

So many variables you have to take into consideration, either that or I just have too much time on my hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...interesting question.

 

I'm going to argue just for argueing sake and say it depends on how you look at the question. Looking at it from a law point of view, I'm pretty sure an arguement could be made that the A.C wasn't liable, or at least wasn't completly liable. here's my reasoning:

 

 

1) If the police officer would not have shot the man in the chest then he wouldn't have run back into an unsafe house and the A.C wouldn't have been able to fall onto his head - does the police not have some responsibilty?

 

 

2) Was the house structurally safe? If the man was able to run back into the house without being killed by the flames then surly the fire could not have been bad enough to cause the roof to fall in, and if the roof woudln't have collapsed then the A.C wouldn't have hit the man. Therefore, wouldn't the person who built/is responsible for the house being in a safe state have some responsibility?

 

 

3) Lastly if the house wasn't on fire then the roof wouldn't have collapsed and the A.C wouldn't have fallen, so shouldn't whoever lit the fire also have some responsibilty?

 

 

OK, that was too much like writing a response to an essay :angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but who lit the fire?

 

Assuming that the fire was indeed set on purpose, could have been a fault in the wiring or candles, etc. Point being there is no way to know from that statement whether the fire was lit.

 

Plus the question is not 'who is responsible' it is 'what killed him?' While it seems that the question is one in the same, i.e what caused his death there are far too many variables.

 

Such as why did he get shot by the police? Was he endangering someone else? Also no one forced him to run into the burning building.

 

lol I bet the answer is going to be something really simple as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gil Grissom: A, B, C, D or all of the above. Standoff with the police -- guy gets shot in the chest, runs back into his burning house inhaling smoke as he goes. The roof collapses the air conditioning unit falls on his head, he dies. What killed him?

i've no idea of the context or answer, and don't watch CSI :P

 

 

 

but i personally reckon suicide.

 

 

 

the gunshot didn't kill him - he was able to run, so it rather clearly wasn't a fatal, or even near-fatal, shot - chances are he'd have fallen straight to the ground (guesswork, i admit, but still, i doubt if he'd have moved much after a near-fatal shot without medical assistance.)

 

he was inhaling smoke as he went in - but its not enough to put him off going in, so while it might be a serious fire, its not yet fatal. by extension, it should not yet be serious enough to collapse the roof - if it were, he was a very brave man, taking such a chance, and since he ran away, i doubt that. so the air conditioner should not have killed him.

 

 

that leaves the possibility that something else killed him. however, its unlikely to be illness - most terminal illnesses are rather debillitating near the end - how many cancer patients, for example, run a marathon the day before they die? yet this guy is apparently in a standoff with the police - suggesting he's got something he wants, and thus suggesting that he's healthy enough to enjoy it, whatever it may be.

 

it may have been heart failure - but by running into the house, it would appear that his heart was healthy enough to deal with the exercise, or else he wasn't aware of any potential difficulties.

 

now, since he's in a standoff with the police, that suggests he's got a weapon of some kind. to be shot by the police indicates he had a weapon, probably ranged (i.e. firearms) rather than a knife or something. if he'd been holding a hostage, he would not have been shot in the chest - holding a hostage would make a chest shot very difficult due to the size of any human hostage. there's too great a chance of hitting the innocent. hence, his weapon must have been able to threaten others, thus my reasoning for a gun of some sort.

 

now, with a gun in hand, and refusing to give oneself in to the poliece - there's two options left. kill yourself, or persuade the police to kill you. we've seen how the first option has worked out - they're determined to take him alive if at all possible, exhibited by the shot to the chest. so he has to kill himself somehow - and should have at least one bullet left in his gun - assuming he was able to fire sporadically, but accurately, the police would be more likely to kill to defend others if he posed a serious threat than if he was too inaccurate (guess, but based on the assumtion that accuracy is more threatening than innacuracy, assuming that innaccuracy is predominantly missing the target by a considerable margin)

 

 

so with few bullets left, and no indication that the police will kill him, the guy will run into the house to prevent them trying to stop him killing himself (ok, so you'd need a damn good trickshot to get the gun out of his hand before he pulls the trigger - but if you're good enough or lucky enough, its possible)

 

and so he shoots himself, the fire suddenly grows bigger, and the air conditioner falls on his head.

 

 

or else i'm completely and utterly wrong :(

 

 

(oh, and apologies for the essay... :poki:;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've just checked back on the trivia thread for the answer (second-last page at present) and rach - if you read this, post either here or on trivia: i realise that the logic you seem to have used is from a literal interpretation of the question, but is your answer definitive, or is it feasable to interpret it in other ways, and have additional answers?

 

just curious :dance:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...