Daily Times

The boy was wielding a sharp machete. The other boy was walking firmly towards him, but he was struggling with the walk probably because of the ripples of the ship on the sea’s waves. At just the moment when the boy moved his hand holding the machete backwards, the other boy too swiftly got hold of a saw idly lying nearby and with full force hit the machete boy’s neck. The boy’s head flew like a dice towards the edge of the ship; it was now rolling back and forth with the ripples of the ship on the waves thus spilling blood all over the tarmac. The body itself remained on its feet only momentarily before it too fell to one side, spilling blood everywhere.

The other passengers that were spectating the machete-wielding boy had now noticed the killing because of the sudden commotion. Among them was the travelling historian; he too was travelling towards his next destination – London.

Soon enough, the passengers and the crew restrained the killer and presented him before the captain of the ship. The ship was big with its curtain making a typical noise hoisted right above. The sea was moderately calm but still there were enough ripples to rock everyone every now and then. People were holding on to each other and were gathered around the captain and the killer.

“Why did you kill him,” asked the captain.

“He tried to kill me first. I only reacted to that and hit him with whatever I could get my hands on in order to protect myself,” the boy said.

“How could you tell that he was trying to kill you? Do you have any prove of that,” asked the captain.

“I saw the boy rushing towards him with the machete,” said a man standing nearby.

“Oh, well then, you are the devil’s advocate. Come here and tell us all what did you see,” said the captain.

The witness of the killing – the “devil’s advocate” – came forward. “I saw a boy coming towards him with a machete in his hand. This boy was oblivious of the approaching boy because he was looking the other way. I don’t know at what point he realised that someone was rushing towards him, however the moment he turned around and saw the boy coming with a machete he grabbed the saw lying nearby and hit the boy at the neck with it,” the main said.

“Why on Earth would the boy want to kill him if he had any such intentions at all,” asked the captain in despair.

“Probably because the killer wanted to kill the boy,” said a man who just came forward.

“And what does that mean?” asked the captain. The second witness said he saw the killer pushing the boy with such a force that the boy fell and hit his head hard at the stairs leading to the ship when they were all boarding the ship earlier in the day.

“Really! Did you do that,” the captain barked at the boy.

“Yes, that is true but I didn’t want to kill him. I was unable to ascertain the force of my push but I just wanted to ensure that I get on the ship. You see, I am a rich boy. I have a business to look after. That boy didn’t look as if he had any bright future before him, and he looked vulnerable enough for me to grab him without any resistance from his end. I wanted to board the ship at any cost,” the boy said defensively.

“And because he was weak and perhaps defenceless therefore you chose to attack him. What a shame,” the captain added.

“But perhaps the boy forgave it, because he didn’t retaliate immediately,” the second witness added quickly.

“I assume that is true because if he wouldn’t have had, then probably we would have been investigating the death of this man and not his. This is strange because the boy chose not to use the exaggerated force, in fact he didn’t use any force at all in retaliation to his aggression; whereas this man not only used the force but he used such a force that was enough to kill the boy,” the captain said. The response in self-defence cannot be disproportional to the threat.

“Dear captain, this boy only acted in self-defence,” the “devil’s advocate” said.

“And what is that supposed to mean? Haven’t we just established that the killer attacked him first?” the second witness said.

“It was not an attack, it was just an effort to get a seat that would have otherwise gone to the boy,” the “devil’s advocate” replied.

“If this was an act of self-defence, then the killer could have certainly done something to prevent himself from being in such a situation. He could have simply avoided hanging out alone,” the captain said. There was silence in the air. For a few moments what people could hear was only the sound of the sails above and that of the sea and the seagulls.

“The boy probably had forgiven the man already, that’s why he didn’t attack him when he could have after all. After the killer got his position in the queue, the boy was then behind him and he could have attacked the killer in retaliation,” the second witness said. Everyone nodded in affirmation.

“Then how could you explain his attack on this man,” the “devil’s advocate” asked.

“What makes you so sure that the boy was actually attacking the man? Did anyone see his hand raised for an attack? Did you see his hand raised,” the captain asked the “devil’s advocate”. The devil’s advocate said “no”. But he quickly added that this is what we call self-defence.

“You see, before the boy would have even attacked with full force – which would have come only when he would have raised the machete – the man retaliated in self defence. You couldn’t expect him to have waited for the boy to hit him with the machete before he would have acted in self defence,” the “devil’s advocate” said.

“The boy didn’t raise the weapon at him, then why are we assuming that the boy would have eventually attacked the man? Isn’t it that people sometimes threaten others with a weapon and don’t really use it? Moreover, the boy could have had a change of heart before he would have actually attacked the man. He also could have slipped due to the ripples of the ship on the waves after losing the balance and wouldn’t have been able to attack at all. The killer acted in a hurry and he chose to finish him this time as the last time he was unable to kill the boy when he pushed him with full force. Moreover, as the retaliatory force cannot exceed the attack and since there was no attack at all from the boy, therefore the killer’s act is that of aggression and discrimination and not an act of self defence,” the second witness said.

“Wait a minute. We now know that the boy was attacked first by the killer. But the boy didn’t choose to react, although he got a chance to do so when he was standing in the queue behind the killer. Secondly, before the killer would kill the boy, no one saw the boy’s raised hand. So we are not sure if he was even interested in attacking the man and kill him. Maybe he was not even attacking the man. This clearly puts the killer in a position where he should be considered an aggressor as well as the killer,” the captain added.

“No sir that also means this man acted in duress. And can anyone explain the boy’s charging with a machete,” the devil’s advocate added.

“What is duress, mister,” the captain looked perplexed.

“You see, I am a barrister back in New York and I have seen people committing some crime in those situations when they have no other choice. Those very situations are called crime in duress. When the man turned around and saw the boy charging at him with the machete, he did what anyone would have done. He acted in self-defence and that defence took the life of the boy. But you and I and we all would have done the same thing in that very situation,” the “devil’s advocate” said.

“And how does that get punished – murder under the duress,” asked the captain.

“It does not get punished. This is why the ‘devil’s advocate’ is trying to prove that the man acted in duress,” the second witness added further.

“What is bothering me right now is that if the boy didn’t attack the killer after the killer pushed him before boarding the ship then why did he charge at him with a machete much later,” the captain asked.

“Maybe he was not charging at him at all,” another man said, coming forward. He was young and was about the same age as the boy killed.

“What do you mean son,” the captain asked. The young man said that he saw the boy sitting with a fortuneteller earlier. When the boy was leaving, the fortune-teller looked very distressed.

Soon enough, the passengers and the crew restrained the killer and presented him before the captain of the ship. The ship was big with its sails making a typical noise hoisted right above. The sea was moderately calm but still there were enough ripples to rock everyone every now and then. People were holding on to each other and were gathered around the captain and the killer

“Bring the fortune teller here,” the captain ordered. When the fortune-teller came, he was shocked at the sight of the severed head of the boy. “I warned him,” mumbled the fortuneteller.

“What does that mean,” the captain asked.

“When the boy came to me I told him that the ship was taking him to his death,” the fortune-teller said.

“Really? But he died before this ship could reach anywhere. “By the way, how many of your predictions come true,” asked the captain.

“Not many. It’s all about the money,” the fortune-teller said honestly.

“May I ask where exactly the boy was killed by this boy right here,” the second witness asked. Everyone pointed in the direction where the first of the many ropes holding the sails were tied. “Oh my God. I can now tell you with full conviction that the boy didn’t intend to kill this boy after all. He actually did forgive him for his past aggression,” the second witness said.

“How can you conclude that,” asked the captain.

“Look, the fortune teller told the boy that the ship was taking him to his death but didn’t tell him that not all of his predictions are accurate. However, the boy who had been attacked previously, boarded the ship and had a near death experience, so he thought the fortuneteller’s prediction may come true. Therefore he got hold of a machete from somewhere with the intention to cut all the ropes that were holding the sails so as to halt the ship. It is a coincidence that this boy was standing very near to the first rope that the boy charged to cut. Since this boy had previously attacked the deceased so he was expecting some retaliation from him. Thus when he saw the boy charging towards him with a machete, he automatically concluded that the boy was about to attack him. So he got hold of the weapon and acted in self-defence, ” the second witness explained.

“If this is the case and we accept that the boy intended to cut the rope, then sir we call the boy an innocent aggressor and the killer again gets the advantage of duress. The boy was driven to cut the rope after being told that the ship will take him to his death. So the boy in distress decided to cut the ropes to halt the ship however neither this man – the killer – had seen him talking to the fortune teller nor did he knew the intention of the boy; therefore he assumed that the boy was attacking him. So he acted in self-defence,” the “devil’s advocate” concluded.

There was again silence in the air. The captain was nodding in affirmation. “Yes, I can see that the boy was killed in self-defence however the man attacked him first. Had he not attacked him previously under greed and selfishness, he wouldn’t have had any reason to believe that the boy was attacking him in retaliation and the boy would have lived. Therefore, if we can find any legal heirs of the boy on this ship, we can register a case against the killer once we reach London,” the captain said. No legal heirs came forward. “Well if we don’t have any legal heirs on this ship then it is due on the state of England to register a case against the killer and then the state may either absolve him of all charges finding him to be acting in self-defence or punish him according to law,” the captain said.

“I am afraid sir, this too is not possible,” the “devil’s advocate” said. “As we have already established that the boy had forgiven the man of his earlier aggression therefore he cannot be punished for a crime for which his victim had forgiven him. Secondly, the boy was acting on information passed to him by the fortune-teller who didn’t warn him that his predictions could be wrong. Therefore, if a case has to be registered, then it should be against the fortuneteller and not against the man who killed the boy in self-defence. I also doubt that a case can be registered against the fortuneteller either. It is because the boy went to a professional fortuneteller and not the other way around. I am sure what the boy intended to do was an act of his own discretion,” the “devil’s advocate” said.

At this stage, the ship docked at the port of London. Everyone hurried to collect his or her baggage. The travelling historian too decided to move. He stood up and gradually began packing his belongings; he placed his pen in his breast pocket and the notebook in the backpack. He nicely folded his mat and stuffed it too in his backpack. Before finally leaving the ship he stopped, looked around, looked at the severed head of the boy whose case shall never be registered and then looked directly into the reader’s eyes and said, “If only we were not too greedy!”

The writer is an assistant professor. He can be reached at m.khalid.shaikh@gmail.com

Published in Daily Times, October 4^th 2017.