According to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (via LexisNexis), intent could basically be proven by the fact that they were doing something so insanely, recklessly, irresponsibly dangerous as playing Russian roulette.

Since it's malice and intent that's needed for a murder conviction, did the fact that he said he wasn't actually trying to actively kill his friend mean he couldn't be convicted? He was found guilty of killing his friend while they were playing a game of Russian roulette, and he argued that since he hadn't actually intended to kill his friend, the murder conviction shouldn't stand. The former is Pennsylvania, and the latter is James Malone. (While that might be a great bit of trivia for a super-spy protagonist, it's important to mention that's still not a 100%, real-life guarantee.) Why? Balance and weight - the heavier, bullet-filled chamber is more likely to settle at the bottom. Still, here's a fun fact that fiction writers everywhere will appreciate, and it comes via Technology. The older (and more well-oiled) a revolver is, the better the chances are that the gun isn't going to fire. The math behind calculating the probabilities of more (or randomly placed) bullets gets even harder, and the bottom line is that you don't really ever want to be in this position for real.

The answer is to just pull - at that point, there's a 66.7% chance you'll come up with another empty cylinder, while spinning it again puts you back at square one.

Do you spin the cylinder, or just pull? On the off chance that you happen to be faced with this particular interview question, we'll help you out. Data Genetics says there's a Russian roulette-related question that was used in job interviews for a while, and it was basically this: two bullets are loaded, and the first trigger pull is on an empty cylinder.

Mobilism russian roulette