I've always thought that if, as a society, we are saying it's wrong to take a life, then we should set an example by sticking to that philosophy like glue.
A civilization trillions of years ago. Before the impact that would create the moon. Turning the core inside out. No evidence whatsoever. Nor stories they may have had.
I'm not well fed, my uber eats delivery driver is taking forever to get here. It's been up to 40 minutes and my roommate is lucky I haven't brought up the "custom of the sea". I'll give it another 5 minutes before I bring it up. Wish me luck
@@Vasilyevich05 easy thing to say from the comfort of your sofa, with the comforts of the current time period. Yes, he/they murdered a man, but.. a man who was going to die anyway given his condition. You can let the man suffer for multiple days and wait for him to die naturally and then do what they did. Or you can end his misery and help 3 others to survive.. yea, ideally you wait for him to naturally pass, or for the victim to suggest it on his own. But.. either way.. easy to judge from a comfortable position
That's truly a tough one. You never know what you would do till you're actually in this exact situation. Starvation and dehydration can make a person do anything to survive.
Eh it’s not that hard if you have what it takes to survive. A rational person would’ve gaged the severity of their situation and immediately dispose of the weak. Less mouths to feed means you can stretch your survival window, and if you can’t pull your own weight or rather contribute to group survival, you are just a detriment. The rules of safe, sheltered civilization due not apply to the rules of survival, be it open sea, wild jungle, etc
@@Lawrence_Talbot2 sides to it depending on environment it’s hard to know what to do cox more people sometimes means higher chance of survival especially if your in an environment with predators more people means better security if it’s just you then sleeping ain’t much of an option in a jungle there’s always a predator that can get anywhere
@@Grassgrassgras What he said still stands. He said a rational person would've gaged the severity of the situation, and that if you can’t pull your own weight or rather contribute to group survival, you are just a detriment. In your example, being out in the jungle with predators you say it is more wise to stay together for protection. Well then you as the rational person should recognize that and stay together because you're all contributing to group survival.
@@Grassgrassgras more people does not guarantee survival if predators are around. It _can_ if people work together to keep watch, fend off, etc. But I’m going to guess you have minimal survival wilderness training. If you have weak people who do not contribute, all they do is drag you down/make the group do more work to support the weak. If they are hurt and especially if they bleed, they will attract more predators than deter. This is also a law in many tribal cultures, both extinct and current. If you don’t contribute, you are banished. The exception being the elderly as they are seen as wise for surviving for so long. Depending on the culture, they may allow sick to remain, or they may exile them because A) they cannot pull their own weight and B) for fear of disease spreading to the rest of the tribe. This is also something people often overlook in survival situations. How many stories have we heard on this channel where someone gets sick, then it spreads to more and more until half the group is sick and succumbs.
@@dredwick True, but Apollo 13 was damn near stranded if it wasn't for the ingenuity of the flight control team to help save the crew. Such a close call!
That's right! Imagine how people will act when the power goes out and the food isn't coming. That animalistic behavior would quickly become the norm again
As someone that's been lost for days in the woods, I can tell you that dehydration is one of the most horrible things your body can go through. It's sheer agony. Not drinking the seawater in a situation like this would be nearly impossible.
Our thirst mechanism is so strong it's hard to imagine anyone getting dehydrated, surrounded by cool water and not being tempted to take a sip. It would be torture.
It seems strange to me that humans and other creatures have evolved to be so dependent on water. Some people die after just a couple of days without water, while other people have survived for over a week or longer.
I went 30 hours no water, but I was also very sick with a stomach bug… and I was about to die. They had to give me so many bags of water in the ER and I instantly felt better. Dehydration is very painful.
@@boangsiate7701actually 😮 “382 days, achieved by a Scottish man named Angus Barbieri who fasted for that duration between 1965 and 1966” He was a very large man, however. But you can survive off nothing for a VERY long time…
It must have been so horrifying for Richard being gravelly ill and knowing what the people beside him were planning. Extreme situations will make humans do unspeakable things. RIP Richard.
too much sodium in the blood can cause confusion and then eventually lead to coma and considering he was already dehydrated when he drank the sea water, i doubt he was aware of the situation by the time the sea water was processed by his body
Whats even crazier is every single man in that raft that survived told the truth even when faced with death. They all could’ve easily agreed that he died before they began to eat him and faced no charges at all
And they made sure to account for the dead body because they thought he deserved a religious burial. They could have flung him overboard and said the blood was from a turtle.
Strictly speaking they didn't hold to the "Law of the Sea": Richard wasn't asked for his opinion on the matter because he was already too far gone and therefore couldn't consent, which is a crucial point in that "Law of the Sea" (all involved must agree).
That defence laywer made a really valid point First, he disproved the procecutor's claim that "nothing justifies killing", since self-defence exists. Second, he pointed out how sacrificing yourself so others can survive is apparently a crime, yet if at the same time if you attack someone and get killed - suddenly it's all okay Imagine resorting to custom of the sea just to survive and then get immediately executed for murder. Where's the common sense in that?
But no one sacrificed themselves in this case. From the description it clearly was murder and the question should have been if survival is a justification like self defense is.
The issue here is that Richard Parker didn't consent to his death. The others chose him because he was already on the verge of death. Literally, if they waited for him to die first it wouldn't have been an issue.
When it comes to extreme situations and survival, you aren’t going to be thinking about if it’s illegal or not. Arguably you’re going to not be totally there and your instincts will kick in and you’ll save yourself by any means needed regardless of how you think while safe from such events.
@@Dayvit78 Projecting your values on others is a childish and naive personal failure. You werent there, you can't pretend to know they told the truth, it's completely impossible to verify.
Suggestion: Flatters Expedition in the 1880s. 100 French & Algerian engineers and paramilitary personnel, along with several hundred camels went into the Sahara desert to survey the land for laying railroad. After marching weeks deep into the desert they were attacked by the native Tuareg people, and the survivors had to walk hundreds of miles back to safety, through the desert, with no camels, very little food and water, and under constant harassment from the Tuareg. On their trek back they were ambushed, poisoned, fought a pitched battle, were hit by a sandstorm, and eventually resorted to cannibalism. Less than 10 made it out of the Sahara after several months to tell the tale. No one on UA-cam has covered this fascinating story AFAIK.
I seriously can't believe they survived being jammed in a tiny boat with no food, no water, the weather mercilessly beating at them, frequent bailing, difficulty with urination/defecation, and being forced to eat/drink a raw turtle and a raw person with no way to clean up what was left. The situation really does beg to ask the question: "Was it worth 'punishing' them after all they did and went through?" I'm willing to bet that being detained and eventually ending up in prison wasn't punishment at all compared to being on that tiny boat. I feel like bringing the law into this situation also brings a lot of hypocrisy, especially when there have been prior known cases of invoking the custom of the sea in which some of those cases were far less 'fair' than what happened in this case. That being said, a slap across the face in the form of 6 months prison is justifiable since Ed never consented to the custom and was, in a sense, forced to eat/drink the remains even if it was critical to his survival. It's hypocrisy, but less than what the law dragged into this situation.
there were dozens of cases. there isa book "Custom Of The Sea" I read twenty years ago that details this case and covers many of the others like it that were commonly not treated as a crime at all. it was really all about the attitudes of the time in Victorian England.
@@steveelder5306yes! My dad is a retired navy veteran of 33 years in service and he had me read the same book as you possibly. He asked me the question, “What would you do to survive?” He asked me that question as in a general question. As an army veteran I can say that I would do whatever it takes for survival and no matter if it were to become animalistic in nature. Now, the 16 year old me waaaaay back when answering that question was probably prissy and I could not do something like that. Now, my friend, let me ask you, “What would you do to survive?” 😊
I'd have been okay if they had just put it on their record and were allowed to take it into consideration for sentencing if any of them did a violent crime later on. It's unlikely any of them would ever be in that situation twice, so there wouldn't really be a point in rehabilitation. Especially since it was a survival situation. It was all just messy and tragic, but I agree that what they went through was punishment enough.
@@nawtygi ya gotta do what you gotta do. I have been stuck in a lot of situations as a commercial fisher and can definitely say that one can get very resourceful when you might die. time does slow down.
You're totally right, is it even humane at that point to punish someone by death rather than acknowledging their situation or just putting them in prison (which luckily for this story was the case)
I really came in, listened to the first two minutes, and sat back fully expecting there to be a secret law that says no Richard Parker's allowed on ships. I'm glad I don't make laws.
Me too! I thought it'd be one of those dumb laws like "you can't eat ice cream and cross the street in (insert state)" Glad all those Richard Parker's are still allowed on the open sea...I wouldn't risk joining the Navy tho
@@xxyes8879 Dude your insane without saying u are NOT wanting to be brutally murdered is more sane than u saying he's being selfish (besides, by your own logic, eating the weakest/sickest of the group would be stupid and dumb)
Sorry I know this is a few months old but just had to mention that the sickest/most starved would bring it up, in this case they didn't draw lots and have a fair process like they were supposed to. The rules never were "weakest/sickest man gets eaten" that's just what the 2 decided to do in this instance, which goes against the proper process and etiquette. If you remember the 3rd rule it was that it is supposed to be a fair process and any man can be chosen. They were supposed to draw lots/straws, not just say "he's sick so stab 'em in the neck!" The point was that it was supposed to be left to fate who was chosen.
This is the first time I've heard it described as "The Custom of the Sea"; what a fascinating piece of anthropology; the gentlemen sailors of the era trying to put a better face on something truly horrific, and thereby make the incomprehensible into the understandable, even in the minds of those not upon the seas. What a great piece of history; thank you for making this video!
I have to imagine that those sacrificed were looked upon with great honor and respect. I wouldn't be surprised if some even felt proud knowing their demise meant the preservation of the rest of their crew. Such resolve and courageous moxie from those in the tales of yesterday.
@@icedo1013years ago a family friend Richard wanted to do his PhD of study of captain Scott of Antarctica expedition 1912 he was of the belief as Cptn Scott and his crew were ex Navy they used something similar to custom of sea when they stuck on the ice. The story I was told in the 1960s as a kid was that Oates sacrificed himself to outside the of the tent in a winter storm so the others would have more food and water to survive with one less to feed and he was the Hero. Richard believed that was enough evidence that Oates had agreed to give his body so the others could eat him, there was dome evidence some cables had taken place in terms remade cooking utilsels..I remember Richard telling the family at a gathering he much resistance from the Royal Society and other organisations of what he was about to do!😢
So please explain how English law can apply to people in a rowing boat in the south Atlantic ? Surely there should have been an obvious way to argue that the law doesn't apply ? Or is it because the captain was still their leader, so the crew was sailing under English law ?
It's easy to pass judgement while warm, dry, secure and well fed... Like so many other difficult situations if you weren't there you'll never understand.
Totally agree. Just replied with this sentiment to a comment judging the Rugby team's survival in the Andes. None of us know what we are really capable of until we're in the midst of a survival situation and it's not our place to judge.
@@mattmatt6572 richard would've died anyways, and they could've ended up diying in these 4 days too, it seems like little but they were already almost diying.
@@mattmatt6572 He wouldn't have survived the "amputation". And you can only survive 3-6 days without water under optimal conditions, and they were not in optimal conditions, they were under scorching sun with no shade in open salty waters. It was either kill 1 or all die. Even if we knew every single detail about the story and knew for a fact they would have had survived without the killing, i say they should still have been judged "not guilty". Because while we know their future, they did not. For them it was kill or probably die, and it is every living beings nature to do anything to survive.
I have an ancestor who was nearly victim to the custom of the sea. He drew the short straw but they were rescued that very day before he was set to be killed
Its actually "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket." Oddly enough, Poe hated the story. Considered it childish... until the exact same thing really happened (and then he thought of it as chidish BUT apparently realistic)
@@troybolton14 No, he died in 1849. But he did indeed write a story that would end up being hauntingly similar to the events in this story. Even down to the name Richard Parker (which would also be used in Life of Pie as the name of the tiger but the name was given to said tiger under different circumstances but I'm sure it was intentional on the author's part). He also believed it incredibly childish and unrealistic. I would imagine that if he had had the opportunity to hear the details of this story after the fact, his feelings wouldn't renege in regards to his own story's childishness but he could no longer deny that it could most definitely happen
Just wanna throw out there that out of everything I watch on UA-cam this channel is def one of the few that I will look forward to new episodes of. Keep at it and good job!
This is a horror story..the thought of killing and eating a person for my own survival is disgusting and unfathomable,but i guess nobody knows what they'll do till theyre put in the situation!
Well if you were stranded on a ship or deserted island and some people had died and you are starving beyond where your organs are starting to slow down. Are you saying you would rather starve to death rather than eat someone's cooked flesh.
@@user-adoyle123can you not read? Is comprehension difficult for you to understand? They literally said "you never know what you may do until you're put in that situation." The fact that they're comment made complete sense and was in fact wise, yet prompted such a dumb reply from you. Cannibalism is disgusting and unfathomable. No matter how you look at it. However, their entire point is, they wouldn't WANT to do it. But they can't say what they would or would not do unless they were placed into that situation. Now that it's been explained to you like a 6-year-old, you'll see just how redundant your insipid reply was.
@@user-adoyle123in all fairness, there's a district difference between eating someone that has already died and killing someone so that you can eat them to survive.
i think the thing that made it easier for the judges to throw this as a murder too was that, it wasnt custom of the sea. As explained in the vid the custom of the sea MUST: Be unaminous (Ed was against it right until the very end) Be Necesarry, no other options etc. (There were no other bodies, and they had no food) Be Fair (they hadnt drawn lots) Now, after googling it too, i found out that if they had waited for him to die naturally, that does actually also count as Custom of the Sea, meaning they would be allowed to eat him without killing him, though they would still have needed unanimous agreement. Custom of the Sea in terms of drawing lots kicks in if there no other food options, it does however state, atleast according to the wiki, that the consumption of corpses is allowed before lots have to be drawn.
Poor Richard sealed his fate with the seawater-drinking, and was terminally ill. He wasn't going to make it out alive. So why draw straws? Richard was the obvious choice. Hardly an easy one. Even Richard's brother Daniel understood.
@@Alex-Trejo Of course that is a possibility. But why would they lie and said he was sick when they could've lied and said that they draw straws? That was the more socially accepted way of dealing with this situation. That leads me to think they are telling the truth.
There was an old Ghost story about a boat called the Pierrot with a situation exactly like this, with an 18 year old named Dick Tomlin being eaten. The second half of the story ("The Fiend in Bandages") involves a Bloodied bandaged phantom hunting down the other three and taking his revenge. It seems like a retelling of this event, with a very different conclusion.
I take a handful of pills every day, several of which are pretty excruciating to stop cold turkey even before you have to consider the underlying conditions they're treating. Just put me out of my misery in that situation lol.
@@littlebear274 Same. I'm an organ transplant recipient, so if I don't have my anti-rejection meds every 12 hours I'd probably be beyond recovery in a couple weeks. I'd appreciate if everyone waited until I was clearly in the fatal throes of liver and kidney failure til they killed and ate me, though. Just on the off chance that we get saved at the last possible minute.
I studied this case in law school even though I live in South Africa (in Cape Town actually, the place they were sailing to), because we are a former colony and inherited a lot of English law. The case has had impacts on the law across the globe. It's not just about the custom of the sea but the defense of necessity in general. There are many defenses to a charge. There's self defense of course but there's also impossibility and then necessity, the two being quite similar. Anyway most people agree that this decision was pretty sus. I think the final question you ask actually reveals the same mistake that the judges made: thinking that you could possibly understand what you would do in that situation from the comfort of your home.
Self defense is one thing, but with eating the person as a motive, no way. I know law and ethics are two different things in court, but I live by morals and values that would not allow this. People are more than this one life.
I mean you also have to consider the position of the judges. There are lot's of crimes that have specific cases where committing it wasn't any sort of injustice or anything, but it's so hard to prove that it really was the "good" variant and not just the plain old bad variant that the law doesn't even entertain the possibility of the good one. Killing for survival at sea is exactly that kind of crime. Sure in this story, it made sense, Richard was sick, and by his own fault too so deciding to sacrifice him made sense, as would sacrificing someone after a fair custom of the sea. But how do we know that Richard was sick? Oh right, from the testimony of the men who killed him... I'd call that "sus" as well. Killing in order to save as many lives as possible at sea makes sense, killing to save your life at sea is a heinous crime. And there's no way to differentiate.
@@vitkosbence3705 I'll preface this by saying that while I graduated law school I did not go into practice, so take this with a pinch of salt, but I do think I can clarify a few points. The first point you raise is how to handle cases where proving a something is very difficult. There are a lot of things that the law can do with the burden of proof in such cases. There may be an evidentiary burden on the defendant or there may be a rebuttable presumption which the defendant is required to disprove. I don't recall all the details. But the basic idea is "we're going to assume this was a bad case, unless you are able to prove otherwise". But the "unless you are able to prove otherwise" part is always there. The law won't just throw it's hands up and say "well this is too difficult so we refuse to consider it". Unless it's the sort of thing that is always the bad case, the door will be open to the defendant to provide evidence that it was a good case, but the burden is on them to do so. The second point you raise is on how to deal with cases where the only witnesses to a crime are the perpetrators. The short answer to this is that it happens a lot, with all types of crimes, and it's always a very difficult situation. But the courts have to look at the evidence anyway. And this is why you have things like cross examination. Because if someone is lying then their story at some point won't add. You might not get a confession out of them, but you will be able to show that they are an untruthful witness. It's also why things like autopsies and other forensic evidence can be very important. independent witnesses are not the only form of evidence. But yes, it's difficult. It's not unique to this type of problem though. All that said though the reason why this case was criticised is because of the reasoning that the judges gave. They didn't convict because they didn't believe them. If I recall correctly, they actually did believe the full story. The judges just said that, even though all that was true, basically something along the lines of "a proper upstanding English gentleman would have done the honourable thing and just starved". And that's why they're criticised for imposing unreasonable standards on someone in an extreme situation. Look, judging is hard. Sometimes there are rules and presumptions etc to make it easier. And sometimes you can say "this is excuse is never okay so we won't even entertain it". And there are definitely legal scholars who do argue that that should be the case for necessity defences. But sometimes you have to just try your best to fully undertand the situation and make a good call. And that's what the law currently is in South Africa. I found a 2015 case on necessity now and this is one of the things that the court had to say: "Whether a defence of necessity will lead to an acquittal will be dependent on the particular circumstances of the case at hand and a careful consideration of the entire factual matrix which must be examined and adjudicated upon with the utmost care. As the majority decision in Goliath demonstrates, a defence of necessity in criminal proceedings involves considerations of reasonableness, morality and ethics"
For the most part, the people who make laws and participate in the legal system have no personal experience with the matters they're considering. Moreover, few people with personal experience in the matters have the ability to participate in making the decision. Society could not function without the inexperienced being the ones sorting these issues out.
@neildutoit Why don't you practice law? Forgive me asking but my wife also doesn't practice law and feels bad about having spent so many years w/o actually practicing it and I thought maybe you could offer a new perspective. Also, nice to meet a fellow AoE enthusiast :)
He’s got a good point about the bread thief, A bread thief would get sent to Australia, but If someone commits murder and canebalism to stave off their starvation they only get 6 months.
As a saying may or may not go: "empty stomachs speak much louder than laws or moral codes". In their situation, unless something about their situation drastically changed, they would have all died had they not gone through with it. It royally sucks that this is what it had to come to, but sometimes you have no other choice if you value your life.
Years ago while I was in the Navy, we would have this discussion on watch whenever we got a new person. It let us kinda feel out the person, but was mainly to mess with them. Of course, we acted like it was actual naval doctrine and happened fairly regularly in the old days and still happened on occasion.
On the last video you explained that sub captains have to leave their humanity behind and do the best thing for survival. In this case, I think Tom and Edwin did the same thing. Had they drawn straws a healthy man may have been selected and Richard would have most likely died anyway. I do not think they had much of a choice.
When I first understood what it meant to ride out a storm at sea - even when your boat stays intact and you don't have to resort to cannibalism - that was when I knew that I have no reason to ever set foot in a boat.
I actually had a whole class period debate back in college about this exact incident. The details in the textbook were not complete but the idea was there. The class was split almost 50/50 I think on if it was justified
My 16 yo daughter named our King Cobra guppy fish Richard Parker and I was just proud that she is such a history buff that she thought of it. It's an odd fact that not many would pick up on. I already knew the story but I watch all the Scary Interesting vids he tells the stories so well
@@rustyhowe3907I agree I just hope his death wasn’t painful and long. I hope he was maybe already a little out of it due to the dehydration and other circumstances.
@@Jennwarner1988 It could be a part of why the rest opted to end him, the immense pain this poor lad would've been going through as his organs shut down, it would take a long time and his mind would've been gone. So I genuinely think the decision was made partly out of mercy as well.
@@user-hb4zz4gh5e Well sea water's salt content is excessively high, too much will kill you and it would've began for this lad by an immediate thirst no matter how much he drank. His lips would crack and his throat would feel dry, his stomach bloated. Then the pain begins right in the kidneys as they try to filter the salt out and do everything they can to conserve water, which would in turn dehydrate him further. The liver would be next to fall as it does its utmost to control what the body now considers poisoning, but the salt destroys everything it touches, drying out the body from the inside out. One by one his organs shut down in the most intense pain until it reaches the brain being affected. He more than likely hallucinated and possibly became hostile due both delirium and pain. If the rest of the group didn't end him, his natural end wouldn't have been merciful but loaded in pain long after he didn't remain responsive anymore. Salt literally pickles you from the inside out, while you're still alive, it's a tragic end.
Unfun Fact: I can remember which of the men, but after serving his time, he moved to Australia. He later contracted syphillus (sp?) and died just a few years later. The other man, plagued by guilt at what they’d done, became an alcoholic and ultimately took his own life. This was the first case I read for my crim law course in law school and uh…it left an impression lol.
This is one of my favorite stories I've ever heard about a shipwreck. Incredible narration as usual. I cant imagine what those men felt to do anything to survive.
I LOVE your old school historic shipwreck videos! You could make a whole other channel dedicated to them, bc there are SO many 😊 Love your work as always Sean! 💙❤💜
There was no “custom of the sea”. The guy they killed didn’t consent to participate, nor did the third guy. It was straight murder. You don’t have the right to kill someone to, supposedly, save yourself from dying. They were guilty and should have got a long sentence, ideally. 10 years would have been fair imo. But these were very different, more brutal, times.
@@diaperfang5293that hypothetical person you are mourning agreed to give up their life to save the others if they were picked. i would absolutely agree to participate in sharing equal risk so that the majority of my crew could survive, whichever side i wound up on. edit: furthermore the relatives of the victim in this case shook the hands of the surviving men. they understood completely.
What made this case different was the nature of Richard's death. In usual cases of the custom whoever croaks first of natural causes is eaten, other times a volunteer would offer themselves up or straws were drawn. Tom and Edwin murdered a defenseless Richard so they could eat him on the basis of considering themselves more important. The takeaway here is that these men absolutely sucked at fishing and hunting. There have been cases of men surviving for months in a tiny raft at sea by virtue of not being terrible fishermen.
It makes sense.... A death warrant/sentence issued legally as the punishment for murder, is not murder in itself. It is a judicial process. Same result though. Just that it is legal.
I remember reading about this case in the 90’s when Alive was released and the topic of eating humans for survival purposes came into relevancy once again. I read about it again in a college law class because it was considered a landmark case. Thanks for the share.
My only issue with that they did was that Richard was still alive. They even had to hold him down when they killed him. He didn't volunteer either. They could've just waited for him to die since it seems like he was on death’s door anyways. Who knows…maybe they all could've lived. It's too bad they didn't give Richard that chance but I’m not going to act like I don't understand because I do. What an awful situation to be in :(
I worked offshore crabbing in the Everglades for a coupoe years. Once, a storm came up on us put of nowhere, and we ended up hitting about 14-15ft waves. Now, i was 20 years old, young american kid who only speaks English. The captain was in his 80s, first mate in his 70s and neither of them speak english. I had never been in a storm like that so i was pretty freaked out. The hull ended up with a crack in it and we were taking water below deck. The old man was passing me buckets of water up and i was tossing them over the side. The captain comes down and tells me to give him my shirt. So i did, he goes down below and sticks my t shirt in the crack and it actually worked. Not perfectly, but enough to give us some breathing room. We ended up out of diesel somehow about 6 or 7 hours later, the captain mixed some liquids together from a few different jugs and dumped it in the fuel tank and got us home lol. As sketchy as the whole situation was, i trust those two old men with my life without a doubt. Theres been numerous times theyve saved us. Especially the captain. What a guy. Toughest guys ive ever met in my life. Missing fingers, teeth, you name it. I actually saw the first mate lose the tip of his pointer finger once. He put a small finger condom on it after smothering it in Vaseline and just kept on working. "no problem" he says. Man i miss those guys. I cant imagine being stranded at sea thats a true nightmare. Its a different world out there. I feel so bad for these guys in this video. Poor souls.
There’s a story from my high school history class years ago that I’m trying to remember the specifics of but I wanted to throw what I could remember your way as a fellow Canadian. During the early years of colonization and settlement in Canada there was an incredibly harsh winter that the European colonizers simply weren’t ready for. I don’t remember if it was a trading post or just a very large cabin where everyone gathered but when people were sent to check on the settlers after hearing no word they found the building littered with corpses and largely abandoned. Later, the sole survivor was found to be a boy somewhere between 14-17 who lived because an indigenous tribe came to provide assistance because they knew of the settlement and how horrid the winter had been. They took the boy in and treated him like one of their own. He learned the language, customs, and was all together now a part of their tribe. When the British found the boy and the tribe they believed him kidnapped at first and there was nearly a skirmish before he was able to explain the situation. He ended up instrumental in relations between early British settlers and that tribe specifically. I don’t remember what happened to him in the end though. Pretty sure this happened in the early 1800s to help find more about it. Was also either along the St. Lawrence Riverway or one of the Hudson Bay Company trapping trails
ive heard this same story but it wasn't in canada and it wasn't winter that killed them, it was a shiprwreck off one of the small pacific islands, and i'm pretty sure he covered it on this channel in the past
@@TheElusiveReality I was thinking it sounded like similar circumstances, but honestly it's probably happened several times. Plenty of Native American tribes are documented to have absorbed groups of various sizes into their settlements, the most famous being Roanoke. In the story he covered the boy stayed with them for something like 17 years but in this one it sounds like he was found a lot sooner, maybe a few years for him to have time to integrate.
I've been dehydrated close to heat stroke (or maybe already there) three times in my life. Pounding headache, throwing up, hallucinating, and never once did i think, "you know, if I just ate my friend I'd feel better." Not sure what dehydration plus starvation does to you, but i don't think I'd have participated.
Consent doesn’t weigh nearly as heavy as necessity in life or death: remember, if consent were mandated all of them would’ve died. We’ve also never been in that situation. Furthermore: currently law doesn’t care about consent, it simply outright forbids the practice. Meaning even if someone volunteered to be sacrificed, those who partook in the killing would still be liable for murder.
I build cabinets for a living so i know full well that 1/4" flooring would be a nightmare to stand on. You can push a pencil through that thickness fairly easily depending on material
I'm calling BS on that 1/4" thick statement. I can't imagine anyone of that time to cut such thin wood for a boat but if so it would likely be solid Oak which is very tough.
@@briandbeaudin9166 In the US cabinets are typically made with 1/2" or 3/4" plywood with a thin veneer of oak, maple, birch, etc.. The doors are generally 1/2" solid wood. Other parts such as the back and internal divider panels can be 1/8" to 1/4". Additional framing and support is often Poplar or Sprues/Pine.
Dude I have to tell you that your videos have gotten so much better over the last couple years I’ve been watching them! I love watching your videos. Thank you for making these!
my take is simply that, had they waited a couple more days, Richard would have likely died on his own by that point, and there wouldn't have been any issue. It's the fact that he was still alive, and they killed him that is the source of this question. Custom of the sea aside.
@@sagunsingh7415 they just didn't have the time to wait for him to die, by that point they might be too weak to think clearly and probably end up drinking sea water themselves
They were all on the verge of dying. And Richard Parker wasn't just "the weakest". He was also the person who was the closest to dying and was doing it the quickest because of his own actions to the point where he already could be dead even if he had "just" food and water in his current situation. In real-life screenplays, everything matters, not just the law. In reality, just "being a good person" doesn't mean that the law will always save you. For people who believe otherwise, I sincerely wish you will never end up in an actual situation that has no "good" solutions because these are the kind of people who then panic the most or close off and drift off reality the most and just make things far worse (and unfortunately every situation can be made worse really, even the ones we consider that are the worse at the moment).
Isn’t having to live at sea for weeks and eat your own crewman punishment enough? I feel like “time served” could’ve been an appropriate compromise if the law insisted they had to be guilty by technicality.
Perhaps no one is talking about it because it is SHAMEFUL that he has copied the 'trees at night with spooky music' image from Mr Ballen (who is the king). Seriously, couldn't this guy have found his own theme ???
The British were not only Pioneers of global travel, trade and innovation, they were also Pioneers of Judicial precedents and procedures. Precedents and procedures that underpin most of the Laws in the modern world today.
Only because the British took over so many places and enforced their legal system. Literally every society has its own laws, it's not like everything was complete chaos before they came along.
@@littlebear274 Pre-Draconian/Draconian era Athens and much of Roman history would tend to say the opposite. Even with legal structure, chaos has many foxholes and burrows from which to propagate.
In this case they murdered him without abiding by the customs, parker didn't have the opportunity to draw straws the other men just decided he was the best option. If he was so close to death why not allow him to pass away naturally?
This was the very first case we studied on the very first day of Law School. Ruling: You can’t kill an innocent person to save your own life because their life is worth the same as yours.
@@gaz8891 The fundamental principal is that each of us has the exclusive right to keep our own life and we are under no obligation to sacrifice that life for others. We must volunteer. That’s why the cabin boy’s consent to draw straws is essential.
The courts weren’t wrong to question this. The guy that got killed specifically did not participate in the decision so the whole ‘custom of the sea’ is a red herring and not relevant; the custom wasn’t observed. The question is if two men conspire to murder a third to survive, is that a legally justified killing? Affirmatively defensible murder? If I was the guy about to be killed, I would also have disagreements with my being killed for food.
I don't know if that's true. I think there were probably many times in history when poor people couldn't find work and food for weeks on end, such as in mid-winter in the countryside when there were probably few farming jobs. Meanwhile, the upper classes who inherit land and wealth, are effectively using more than their share of resources and parasitizing the work of others, which is a type of stealing really.
Wow. I never heard of this horrifying sinking. 😳 Another famous incident, if you haven't covered it, is the Essex which sank in 1820. The sanking was caused by a Whale as they were out haunting Whales. They divided into three boats, one gun, a type of biscuit, and a barrel of some type of drink. Thry also had turtles and navigation. Unfortunate one boat got separated and each set of men ended up doing the same. Only a few survived and that included three men who stayed on an island. The incident inspired Mobby Dick and many other movies, books, etc.
Hmm, I think that in truth it IS justified but society agrees that it cannot be considered legally acceptable, cos of the inevitable consequences that would follow. ie. I think the law is pragmatic, and not always fair in individual cases.
Honestly, I don't judge them at all and from the story told, it looks like it was absolutely fair...just tragic. It's not like they were some band of psychos ambushing travelers so they could eat them. This is survival and it's something pretty much any animal will do to survive. Most don't seem too thrilled about it either. It's survival. Except for maybe fish...they seem to just do it to do it lmao. It's one thing to oppose canniablism as a general practice but it's heartless to oppose someone being forced to do it to survive. None of the people trying them for their "crime" had ever felt the degree of suffering they had to go through and yet felt fit to judge them. It's unfortunate, but they didn't do anything evil in this exact circumstance.
That’s the part where I am mixed. Soon as he drank the sea water he basically forfeit his own life anyway. They arguably put him out of his suffering when the end was near anyway. Even if rescued he likely wouldn’t have made it by the time they finally killed him.
So if they didn't kill him they would have died from starvation, but if they do, they live long enough to be put to death by the judicial system, If that's not a loose/loose situation idk what is 🤷🤷
What would of happened if they waited for him to die naturally and then ate him? I mean it's not like they wanted to be stuck floating the sea for a month. Starving, dehydrating, getting cooked by the sun. I don't think they actually enjoyed having to drink blood and raw decomposing flesh.
There is some irony about the judge saying there is NO acceptable case for murder and then sentencing them to death
classic legal system logic lmao
Especially when they felt they had to do it. The judge was just doing it for funsies.
I've always thought that if, as a society, we are saying it's wrong to take a life, then we should set an example by sticking to that philosophy like glue.
@@susiew2521abortions have entered the chat
@dubz2167 Oops. I was solely referring to the death penalty in the CJS. On the matter you raise, I am 100% pro choice.
Imagine all the untold stories where there were no survivors.
Lots of men at the bottom of the sea
A civilization trillions of years ago. Before the impact that would create the moon. Turning the core inside out. No evidence whatsoever. Nor stories they may have had.
@corvoyami3192 there's a hole... there's a hole... there's a hole full of lots of dead men at the bottom of the sea
And now I understand why the tiger in "Life of Pi" was named "Richard Parker"
Good catch!!
Thank you... I didn't even... Wow, that's a cool easter egg
Mmmmm..eggzs...@georgeburchell296
Wow!! So true!!
I just made the same realization
I'm not well fed, my uber eats delivery driver is taking forever to get here. It's been up to 40 minutes and my roommate is lucky I haven't brought up the "custom of the sea". I'll give it another 5 minutes before I bring it up. Wish me luck
very real and terrifying moment
………………….custom of the sea
@@octavia.n Yeah thanks
Yo! It's been three weeks since this post! We need to know that outcome!
He pulled the short stick i think
I think they should be commended for not lying. All 3 could have said he died after drinking the sea water and they just ate his body.
Just another reason why, to this very minute, the truth is extremely unpopular! :)
they probably didnt think that they would get in trouble for this
No reasonable person would...
I mean, do we even know that isn't a lie in itself? It was their justification for doing what they did.
@artyomarty391 reasonable? They murdered a man. 2 of the 4 men did not agree to the killing of Thomas. Where is the reason in that?
@@Vasilyevich05 easy thing to say from the comfort of your sofa, with the comforts of the current time period.
Yes, he/they murdered a man, but.. a man who was going to die anyway given his condition. You can let the man suffer for multiple days and wait for him to die naturally and then do what they did. Or you can end his misery and help 3 others to survive.. yea, ideally you wait for him to naturally pass, or for the victim to suggest it on his own. But.. either way.. easy to judge from a comfortable position
That's truly a tough one. You never know what you would do till you're actually in this exact situation. Starvation and dehydration can make a person do anything to survive.
Eh it’s not that hard if you have what it takes to survive. A rational person would’ve gaged the severity of their situation and immediately dispose of the weak. Less mouths to feed means you can stretch your survival window, and if you can’t pull your own weight or rather contribute to group survival, you are just a detriment. The rules of safe, sheltered civilization due not apply to the rules of survival, be it open sea, wild jungle, etc
@@Lawrence_Talbot2 sides to it depending on environment it’s hard to know what to do cox more people sometimes means higher chance of survival especially if your in an environment with predators more people means better security if it’s just you then sleeping ain’t much of an option in a jungle there’s always a predator that can get anywhere
@@Grassgrassgras What he said still stands. He said a rational person would've gaged the severity of the situation, and that if you can’t pull your own weight or rather contribute to group survival, you are just a detriment. In your example, being out in the jungle with predators you say it is more wise to stay together for protection. Well then you as the rational person should recognize that and stay together because you're all contributing to group survival.
@@Grassgrassgras more people does not guarantee survival if predators are around. It _can_ if people work together to keep watch, fend off, etc. But I’m going to guess you have minimal survival wilderness training. If you have weak people who do not contribute, all they do is drag you down/make the group do more work to support the weak. If they are hurt and especially if they bleed, they will attract more predators than deter. This is also a law in many tribal cultures, both extinct and current. If you don’t contribute, you are banished. The exception being the elderly as they are seen as wise for surviving for so long.
Depending on the culture, they may allow sick to remain, or they may exile them because A) they cannot pull their own weight and B) for fear of disease spreading to the rest of the tribe. This is also something people often overlook in survival situations. How many stories have we heard on this channel where someone gets sick, then it spreads to more and more until half the group is sick and succumbs.
@@Lawrence_Talbotits not that hard if you're a murderous cannibal
Back then, sailing was probably like space exploration. Just the chance to be stranded out alone in the middle of nothing
Plus, the stories of mermaids and krakens... that is a big no thank you from me lol
Except no astronaut has ever been stranded, because astronauts don't stray out of the close bounds of the Earth. But I get what you're saying.
@@dredwick True, but Apollo 13 was damn near stranded if it wasn't for the ingenuity of the flight control team to help save the crew. Such a close call!
@@MrHkballer1stories mixed in like legacy, gold, and glory and might help.
@@MrHkballer1 more likely they were in olympic size swimming pool with cgi… to entertain the gullible sheep man has never gone past lower earth orbit.
Its eerie to know that our minds only prevent themselves from being animalistic because we tend to always have what we need to survive.
I read somewhere that 'the complete collapse of civilized society is only nine missed meals away'.
That's right! Imagine how people will act when the power goes out and the food isn't coming. That animalistic behavior would quickly become the norm again
Cap@@funonvancouverisland
@@krs1297 and gown 👨🏻🎓
We are animals, after all. This shouldn't be a surprise.
As someone that's been lost for days in the woods, I can tell you that dehydration is one of the most horrible things your body can go through. It's sheer agony. Not drinking the seawater in a situation like this would be nearly impossible.
Our thirst mechanism is so strong it's hard to imagine anyone getting dehydrated, surrounded by cool water and not being tempted to take a sip. It would be torture.
It seems strange to me that humans and other creatures have evolved to be so dependent on water. Some people die after just a couple of days without water, while other people have survived for over a week or longer.
That is true. Like they said, you can survive for 28 days without food but can't survive for 5 days without water.
I went 30 hours no water, but I was also very sick with a stomach bug… and I was about to die. They had to give me so many bags of water in the ER and I instantly felt better. Dehydration is very painful.
@@boangsiate7701actually 😮 “382 days, achieved by a Scottish man named Angus Barbieri who fasted for that duration between 1965 and 1966”
He was a very large man, however. But you can survive off nothing for a VERY long time…
Me sitting here wanting to live a quiet life, never being the reason regulations were changed, laws were written, or a cave was dynamited shut.
Nerd
just curious, where you referencing something when mentioning collapsing a cave with dynamite? is there an interesting story behind it?
@@LieLo416 They are referencing the many cave disasters shown on this channel where people get permanently stuck and the cave becomes a grave-site.
Just dont do stupid shit lol, people's worst enemies are often themselves.
@@youtubedeletedmynamewhybotherFacts.
It must have been so horrifying for Richard being gravelly ill and knowing what the people beside him were planning. Extreme situations will make humans do unspeakable things. RIP Richard.
You aren't all there mentally in that kind of state. After a while, you're too tired to even care anymore
They did what they had to do
No, Richard was too far gone, probably in a coma at that point. If you drink sea water, you are dead.
too much sodium in the blood can cause confusion and then eventually lead to coma and considering he was already dehydrated when he drank the sea water, i doubt he was aware of the situation by the time the sea water was processed by his body
Hopefully he was already unable to process sensory information by then
Whats even crazier is every single man in that raft that survived told the truth even when faced with death. They all could’ve easily agreed that he died before they began to eat him and faced no charges at all
And they made sure to account for the dead body because they thought he deserved a religious burial. They could have flung him overboard and said the blood was from a turtle.
Strictly speaking they didn't hold to the "Law of the Sea": Richard wasn't asked for his opinion on the matter because he was already too far gone and therefore couldn't consent, which is a crucial point in that "Law of the Sea" (all involved must agree).
Yea but he can't not consent either so
looks like meat is back on the menu boys
@@braidena1633 but there was no rule that you can just eat the person who couldn't consent, so they still didn't keep the law of the sea
@@braidena1633 So not everybody consented ergo the Law couldn't apply.
Once the kid started drinking seawater he sealed his fate, only a matter of time.
That defence laywer made a really valid point
First, he disproved the procecutor's claim that "nothing justifies killing", since self-defence exists. Second, he pointed out how sacrificing yourself so others can survive is apparently a crime, yet if at the same time if you attack someone and get killed - suddenly it's all okay
Imagine resorting to custom of the sea just to survive and then get immediately executed for murder. Where's the common sense in that?
That legal case was absurdly British.
@@Moros311 I literally can't imagine anything more British tbh.
But no one sacrificed themselves in this case. From the description it clearly was murder and the question should have been if survival is a justification like self defense is.
The victim didn't agree.
It was murder full stop
The issue here is that Richard Parker didn't consent to his death. The others chose him because he was already on the verge of death.
Literally, if they waited for him to die first it wouldn't have been an issue.
There is no way to verify criteria #2. The survivors just have to say 'everyone agreed', but that doesn't make it so.
I mean in this particular case Ed made it clear that he didn’t agree with murdering Richard
Hence why in current law, consent doesn’t matter whatsoever: it’s simply illegal and forbidden.
When it comes to extreme situations and survival, you aren’t going to be thinking about if it’s illegal or not. Arguably you’re going to not be totally there and your instincts will kick in and you’ll save yourself by any means needed regardless of how you think while safe from such events.
Or you can have integrity and say what actually happened like the people in this story.
@@Dayvit78 Projecting your values on others is a childish and naive personal failure. You werent there, you can't pretend to know they told the truth, it's completely impossible to verify.
Suggestion: Flatters Expedition in the 1880s. 100 French & Algerian engineers and paramilitary personnel, along with several hundred camels went into the Sahara desert to survey the land for laying railroad. After marching weeks deep into the desert they were attacked by the native Tuareg people, and the survivors had to walk hundreds of miles back to safety, through the desert, with no camels, very little food and water, and under constant harassment from the Tuareg. On their trek back they were ambushed, poisoned, fought a pitched battle, were hit by a sandstorm, and eventually resorted to cannibalism. Less than 10 made it out of the Sahara after several months to tell the tale.
No one on UA-cam has covered this fascinating story AFAIK.
That's a story I'd love to hear about..
Great suggestion 👍
Expeditions are my favorite stories. I second this.
no one car3s
Wow I hope he takes your suggestion. It sounds like it should be a movie as well.
Yes!
I seriously can't believe they survived being jammed in a tiny boat with no food, no water, the weather mercilessly beating at them, frequent bailing, difficulty with urination/defecation, and being forced to eat/drink a raw turtle and a raw person with no way to clean up what was left.
The situation really does beg to ask the question: "Was it worth 'punishing' them after all they did and went through?" I'm willing to bet that being detained and eventually ending up in prison wasn't punishment at all compared to being on that tiny boat. I feel like bringing the law into this situation also brings a lot of hypocrisy, especially when there have been prior known cases of invoking the custom of the sea in which some of those cases were far less 'fair' than what happened in this case. That being said, a slap across the face in the form of 6 months prison is justifiable since Ed never consented to the custom and was, in a sense, forced to eat/drink the remains even if it was critical to his survival. It's hypocrisy, but less than what the law dragged into this situation.
there were dozens of cases. there isa book "Custom Of The Sea" I read twenty years ago that details this case and covers many of the others like it that were commonly not treated as a crime at all. it was really all about the attitudes of the time in Victorian England.
@@steveelder5306yes! My dad is a retired navy veteran of 33 years in service and he had me read the same book as you possibly. He asked me the question, “What would you do to survive?” He asked me that question as in a general question. As an army veteran I can say that I would do whatever it takes for survival and no matter if it were to become animalistic in nature. Now, the 16 year old me waaaaay back when answering that question was probably prissy and I could not do something like that. Now, my friend, let me ask you, “What would you do to survive?” 😊
I'd have been okay if they had just put it on their record and were allowed to take it into consideration for sentencing if any of them did a violent crime later on. It's unlikely any of them would ever be in that situation twice, so there wouldn't really be a point in rehabilitation. Especially since it was a survival situation. It was all just messy and tragic, but I agree that what they went through was punishment enough.
@@nawtygi ya gotta do what you gotta do. I have been stuck in a lot of situations as a commercial fisher and can definitely say that one can get very resourceful when you might die. time does slow down.
You're totally right, is it even humane at that point to punish someone by death rather than acknowledging their situation or just putting them in prison (which luckily for this story was the case)
I really came in, listened to the first two minutes, and sat back fully expecting there to be a secret law that says no Richard Parker's allowed on ships. I'm glad I don't make laws.
Sort of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” precedent, eh what?
Me too! I thought it'd be one of those dumb laws like "you can't eat ice cream and cross the street in (insert state)" Glad all those Richard Parker's are still allowed on the open sea...I wouldn't risk joining the Navy tho
The guy who was the sickest and in the worst shape is NEVER the one to bring up cannibalism.
Pretty selfish of him. He has no use for his body, where he`s going.
@@xxyes8879 Is it really selfish to not want to be murdered? You're downright insane.
@@xxyes8879
Dude your insane without saying u are
NOT wanting to be brutally murdered is more sane than u saying he's being selfish (besides, by your own logic, eating the weakest/sickest of the group would be stupid and dumb)
Sorry I know this is a few months old but just had to mention that the sickest/most starved would bring it up, in this case they didn't draw lots and have a fair process like they were supposed to. The rules never were "weakest/sickest man gets eaten" that's just what the 2 decided to do in this instance, which goes against the proper process and etiquette. If you remember the 3rd rule it was that it is supposed to be a fair process and any man can be chosen. They were supposed to draw lots/straws, not just say "he's sick so stab 'em in the neck!" The point was that it was supposed to be left to fate who was chosen.
Although that comment is funny af realistically speaking you might bring it up if you were said weak one and the anxiety got to you
Using the life boat as a storage container for your provisions for any journey across oceans makes more sense
This is the first time I've heard it described as "The Custom of the Sea"; what a fascinating piece of anthropology; the gentlemen sailors of the era trying to put a better face on something truly horrific, and thereby make the incomprehensible into the understandable, even in the minds of those not upon the seas.
What a great piece of history; thank you for making this video!
I have to imagine that those sacrificed were looked upon with great honor and respect. I wouldn't be surprised if some even felt proud knowing their demise meant the preservation of the rest of their crew. Such resolve and courageous moxie from those in the tales of yesterday.
Read the book!..same name, the custom of the sea
@@icedo1013years ago a family friend Richard wanted to do his PhD of study of captain Scott of Antarctica expedition 1912 he was of the belief as Cptn Scott and his crew were ex Navy they used something similar to custom of sea when they stuck on the ice. The story I was told in the 1960s as a kid was that Oates sacrificed himself to outside the of the tent in a winter storm so the others would have more food and water to survive with one less to feed and he was the Hero. Richard believed that was enough evidence that Oates had agreed to give his body so the others could eat him, there was dome evidence some cables had taken place in terms remade cooking utilsels..I remember Richard telling the family at a gathering he much resistance from the Royal Society and other organisations of what he was about to do!😢
I'm a lawyer, and this video has a sophisticated legal analysis. Pleasantly surprised. 👍
Sean is the GOAT
I would love to hear your analysis from the laws perspective.
So please explain how English law can apply to people in a rowing boat in the south Atlantic ? Surely there should have been an obvious way to argue that the law doesn't apply ? Or is it because the captain was still their leader, so the crew was sailing under English law ?
It's easy to pass judgement while warm, dry, secure and well fed...
Like so many other difficult situations if you weren't there you'll never understand.
4 more days... they might had lived if they hadn't killed Richard. Maybe they could have just ate one arm.
Totally agree. Just replied with this sentiment to a comment judging the Rugby team's survival in the Andes.
None of us know what we are really capable of until we're in the midst of a survival situation and it's not our place to judge.
@@mattmatt6572 you're not going to survive long chopped off in a boat in the middle of the ocean when you're already very ill.
@@mattmatt6572 richard would've died anyways, and they could've ended up diying in these 4 days too, it seems like little but they were already almost diying.
@@mattmatt6572 He wouldn't have survived the "amputation". And you can only survive 3-6 days without water under optimal conditions, and they were not in optimal conditions, they were under scorching sun with no shade in open salty waters. It was either kill 1 or all die.
Even if we knew every single detail about the story and knew for a fact they would have had survived without the killing, i say they should still have been judged "not guilty". Because while we know their future, they did not. For them it was kill or probably die, and it is every living beings nature to do anything to survive.
I have an ancestor who was nearly victim to the custom of the sea.
He drew the short straw but they were rescued that very day before he was set to be killed
I'll take "things that never happened" for 500 alex
@@coryb8432hahaha if it’s an ancestor maybe it could be true 😭😭 that was funny asf tho
he prolly meant that his ancestor drew the short straw at mcdonalds
@Shadowfate93 Lol, sure buddy, you're very special! Or, much more likely, your grandpa just liked to tell you tall tales.
@@offsidev6059 odds are if he's white, then its very high.
Plus if it was grandpa, he would of said grandpa. ancestor is a bit further than that.
Its actually "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket." Oddly enough, Poe hated the story. Considered it childish... until the exact same thing really happened (and then he thought of it as chidish BUT apparently realistic)
That’s great.
“…TekeLi-Li! …” (from the story.)
This story was my fav among his lesser knowns, when I first started reading Poe. I'm glad to see it get a little limelight.
Poe wasn't alive in 1884 when this happened.
@@troybolton14 No, he died in 1849. But he did indeed write a story that would end up being hauntingly similar to the events in this story. Even down to the name Richard Parker (which would also be used in Life of Pie as the name of the tiger but the name was given to said tiger under different circumstances but I'm sure it was intentional on the author's part). He also believed it incredibly childish and unrealistic. I would imagine that if he had had the opportunity to hear the details of this story after the fact, his feelings wouldn't renege in regards to his own story's childishness but he could no longer deny that it could most definitely happen
Just wanna throw out there that out of everything I watch on UA-cam this channel is def one of the few that I will look forward to new episodes of. Keep at it and good job!
This is a horror story..the thought of killing and eating a person for my own survival is disgusting and unfathomable,but i guess nobody knows what they'll do till theyre put in the situation!
Facts 💯
Well if you were stranded on a ship or deserted island and some people had died and you are starving beyond where your organs are starting to slow down. Are you saying you would rather starve to death rather than eat someone's cooked flesh.
@@user-adoyle123can you not read? Is comprehension difficult for you to understand? They literally said "you never know what you may do until you're put in that situation."
The fact that they're comment made complete sense and was in fact wise, yet prompted such a dumb reply from you.
Cannibalism is disgusting and unfathomable. No matter how you look at it. However, their entire point is, they wouldn't WANT to do it. But they can't say what they would or would not do unless they were placed into that situation. Now that it's been explained to you like a 6-year-old, you'll see just how redundant your insipid reply was.
@@user-adoyle123 calm down cannibal, maybe reread what I wrote..it has nothing to do with your rant!
@@user-adoyle123in all fairness, there's a district difference between eating someone that has already died and killing someone so that you can eat them to survive.
imagine surviving all that and the police give you the typical yeah your right but you can’t do that speech
i think the thing that made it easier for the judges to throw this as a murder too was that, it wasnt custom of the sea.
As explained in the vid the custom of the sea MUST:
Be unaminous (Ed was against it right until the very end)
Be Necesarry, no other options etc. (There were no other bodies, and they had no food)
Be Fair (they hadnt drawn lots)
Now, after googling it too, i found out that if they had waited for him to die naturally, that does actually also count as Custom of the Sea, meaning they would be allowed to eat him without killing him, though they would still have needed unanimous agreement.
Custom of the Sea in terms of drawing lots kicks in if there no other food options, it does however state, atleast according to the wiki, that the consumption of corpses is allowed before lots have to be drawn.
Poor Richard sealed his fate with the seawater-drinking, and was terminally ill. He wasn't going to make it out alive. So why draw straws? Richard was the obvious choice. Hardly an easy one. Even Richard's brother Daniel understood.
I agree. Why sacrifice a person who HAS a chance at survival instead of a person who is on their deathbed?
@@essandera9499How do you know they were telling the truth about Richard being that ill? Maybe he wasn't as sick as they said.
They don't want to eat a sick person
@@Alex-Trejo Of course that is a possibility. But why would they lie and said he was sick when they could've lied and said that they draw straws? That was the more socially accepted way of dealing with this situation. That leads me to think they are telling the truth.
@@essandera9499 To justify them eating him. The picking straw isn't believable that all would agree to do that.
There was an old Ghost story about a boat called the Pierrot with a situation exactly like this, with an 18 year old named Dick Tomlin being eaten. The second half of the story ("The Fiend in Bandages") involves a Bloodied bandaged phantom hunting down the other three and taking his revenge. It seems like a retelling of this event, with a very different conclusion.
Knowing how much trouble my body has with "normal" food, I would volunteer. I'd probably already be the one least likely to survive.
I take a handful of pills every day, several of which are pretty excruciating to stop cold turkey even before you have to consider the underlying conditions they're treating. Just put me out of my misery in that situation lol.
Same!! Unfortunately for all of us 😕
@mistir
Would you like to come to dinner tonight? I have the barbecue fired up and ready!
You may not be saying the same thing if you are actually in a situation like this.
@@littlebear274 Same. I'm an organ transplant recipient, so if I don't have my anti-rejection meds every 12 hours I'd probably be beyond recovery in a couple weeks.
I'd appreciate if everyone waited until I was clearly in the fatal throes of liver and kidney failure til they killed and ate me, though. Just on the off chance that we get saved at the last possible minute.
I studied this case in law school even though I live in South Africa (in Cape Town actually, the place they were sailing to), because we are a former colony and inherited a lot of English law. The case has had impacts on the law across the globe. It's not just about the custom of the sea but the defense of necessity in general. There are many defenses to a charge. There's self defense of course but there's also impossibility and then necessity, the two being quite similar. Anyway most people agree that this decision was pretty sus. I think the final question you ask actually reveals the same mistake that the judges made: thinking that you could possibly understand what you would do in that situation from the comfort of your home.
Self defense is one thing, but with eating the person as a motive, no way. I know law and ethics are two different things in court, but I live by morals and values that would not allow this. People are more than this one life.
I mean you also have to consider the position of the judges. There are lot's of crimes that have specific cases where committing it wasn't any sort of injustice or anything, but it's so hard to prove that it really was the "good" variant and not just the plain old bad variant that the law doesn't even entertain the possibility of the good one.
Killing for survival at sea is exactly that kind of crime. Sure in this story, it made sense, Richard was sick, and by his own fault too so deciding to sacrifice him made sense, as would sacrificing someone after a fair custom of the sea. But how do we know that Richard was sick? Oh right, from the testimony of the men who killed him... I'd call that "sus" as well.
Killing in order to save as many lives as possible at sea makes sense, killing to save your life at sea is a heinous crime. And there's no way to differentiate.
@@vitkosbence3705 I'll preface this by saying that while I graduated law school I did not go into practice, so take this with a pinch of salt, but I do think I can clarify a few points.
The first point you raise is how to handle cases where proving a something is very difficult. There are a lot of things that the law can do with the burden of proof in such cases. There may be an evidentiary burden on the defendant or there may be a rebuttable presumption which the defendant is required to disprove. I don't recall all the details. But the basic idea is "we're going to assume this was a bad case, unless you are able to prove otherwise". But the "unless you are able to prove otherwise" part is always there. The law won't just throw it's hands up and say "well this is too difficult so we refuse to consider it". Unless it's the sort of thing that is always the bad case, the door will be open to the defendant to provide evidence that it was a good case, but the burden is on them to do so.
The second point you raise is on how to deal with cases where the only witnesses to a crime are the perpetrators. The short answer to this is that it happens a lot, with all types of crimes, and it's always a very difficult situation. But the courts have to look at the evidence anyway. And this is why you have things like cross examination. Because if someone is lying then their story at some point won't add. You might not get a confession out of them, but you will be able to show that they are an untruthful witness. It's also why things like autopsies and other forensic evidence can be very important. independent witnesses are not the only form of evidence. But yes, it's difficult. It's not unique to this type of problem though.
All that said though the reason why this case was criticised is because of the reasoning that the judges gave. They didn't convict because they didn't believe them. If I recall correctly, they actually did believe the full story. The judges just said that, even though all that was true, basically something along the lines of "a proper upstanding English gentleman would have done the honourable thing and just starved". And that's why they're criticised for imposing unreasonable standards on someone in an extreme situation.
Look, judging is hard. Sometimes there are rules and presumptions etc to make it easier. And sometimes you can say "this is excuse is never okay so we won't even entertain it". And there are definitely legal scholars who do argue that that should be the case for necessity defences. But sometimes you have to just try your best to fully undertand the situation and make a good call. And that's what the law currently is in South Africa.
I found a 2015 case on necessity now and this is one of the things that the court had to say: "Whether a defence of necessity will lead to an acquittal will be dependent on the particular circumstances of the case at hand and a careful consideration of the entire factual matrix which must be examined and adjudicated upon with the utmost care. As the majority decision in Goliath demonstrates, a defence of necessity in criminal proceedings involves considerations of reasonableness, morality and ethics"
For the most part, the people who make laws and participate in the legal system have no personal experience with the matters they're considering. Moreover, few people with personal experience in the matters have the ability to participate in making the decision. Society could not function without the inexperienced being the ones sorting these issues out.
@neildutoit Why don't you practice law? Forgive me asking but my wife also doesn't practice law and feels bad about having spent so many years w/o actually practicing it and I thought maybe you could offer a new perspective.
Also, nice to meet a fellow AoE enthusiast :)
This is truly horrifying. I felt sick just listening to this. I can't imagine being in a situation like that.
Then you would be first on the Menu ,, Long Pig 😅
He’s got a good point about the bread thief, A bread thief would get sent to Australia, but If someone commits murder and canebalism to stave off their starvation they only get 6 months.
There is a law in the US, if you are out in a blizzard, you can break into a place to save yourself. I don't know if it has to be abandoned.
I really like and appreciate your work! It’s got a lot of background and depth!
As a saying may or may not go: "empty stomachs speak much louder than laws or moral codes".
In their situation, unless something about their situation drastically changed, they would have all died had they not gone through with it. It royally sucks that this is what it had to come to, but sometimes you have no other choice if you value your life.
My body is ready, and my fear of the sea grows ever stronger! 🤣
does it come in teriyaki flavor?
@@Justadonkey😂😂 my kind of sick humor
Yet your pfp is one of the most captain looking pfp's I've seen in a long time 😂
@@Visiopodif only you knew who the guy in his profile picture is lmao 😂
@@laurieb3703You can't just say that and not tell us
Years ago while I was in the Navy, we would have this discussion on watch whenever we got a new person. It let us kinda feel out the person, but was mainly to mess with them. Of course, we acted like it was actual naval doctrine and happened fairly regularly in the old days and still happened on occasion.
On the last video you explained that sub captains have to leave their humanity behind and do the best thing for survival. In this case, I think Tom and Edwin did the same thing. Had they drawn straws a healthy man may have been selected and Richard would have most likely died anyway. I do not think they had much of a choice.
There is nothing in the ocean I need bad enough to risk it.
When I first understood what it meant to ride out a storm at sea - even when your boat stays intact and you don't have to resort to cannibalism - that was when I knew that I have no reason to ever set foot in a boat.
I actually had a whole class period debate back in college about this exact incident. The details in the textbook were not complete but the idea was there. The class was split almost 50/50 I think on if it was justified
Was bingeing your channel and didn’t realized this was a new upload
My 16 yo daughter named our King Cobra guppy fish Richard Parker and I was just proud that she is such a history buff that she thought of it. It's an odd fact that not many would pick up on. I already knew the story but I watch all the Scary Interesting vids he tells the stories so well
Drinking salt water is drawing the short straw. Terrible, terrible situation but I'd stand traumatised with Tom's descension
I'm reluctant to say I'd stand with Tom as well, sooner or later it would've happened and the kid had already sealed his fate with the seawater.
@@rustyhowe3907I agree I just hope his death wasn’t painful and long. I hope he was maybe already a little out of it due to the dehydration and other circumstances.
@@Jennwarner1988 It could be a part of why the rest opted to end him, the immense pain this poor lad would've been going through as his organs shut down, it would take a long time and his mind would've been gone.
So I genuinely think the decision was made partly out of mercy as well.
@@rustyhowe3907What exactly happens to the body when drinking lots of seawater?
@@user-hb4zz4gh5e Well sea water's salt content is excessively high, too much will kill you and it would've began for this lad by an immediate thirst no matter how much he drank.
His lips would crack and his throat would feel dry, his stomach bloated. Then the pain begins right in the kidneys as they try to filter the salt out and do everything they can to conserve water, which would in turn dehydrate him further.
The liver would be next to fall as it does its utmost to control what the body now considers poisoning, but the salt destroys everything it touches, drying out the body from the inside out.
One by one his organs shut down in the most intense pain until it reaches the brain being affected. He more than likely hallucinated and possibly became hostile due both delirium and pain.
If the rest of the group didn't end him, his natural end wouldn't have been merciful but loaded in pain long after he didn't remain responsive anymore.
Salt literally pickles you from the inside out, while you're still alive, it's a tragic end.
Unfun Fact: I can remember which of the men, but after serving his time, he moved to Australia. He later contracted syphillus (sp?) and died just a few years later. The other man, plagued by guilt at what they’d done, became an alcoholic and ultimately took his own life.
This was the first case I read for my crim law course in law school and uh…it left an impression lol.
I know for a fact that I would’ve jumped overboard and accepted drowning as my fate.
of course you would
horrible death, apparently
I still kinda feel bad for Richard Parker, he was only 17 he had his entire life ahead of him.
Not a single person can answer this question until they’re in that situation
This is one of my favorite stories I've ever heard about a shipwreck. Incredible narration as usual. I cant imagine what those men felt to do anything to survive.
I LOVE your old school historic shipwreck videos! You could make a whole other channel dedicated to them, bc there are SO many 😊 Love your work as always Sean!
💙❤💜
The custom of the sea has probably saved more lives than any of us know. In my opinion, the two men charged, should have been pardoned.
There was no “custom of the sea”. The guy they killed didn’t consent to participate, nor did the third guy. It was straight murder.
You don’t have the right to kill someone to, supposedly, save yourself from dying.
They were guilty and should have got a long sentence, ideally. 10 years would have been fair imo. But these were very different, more brutal, times.
@@diaperfang5293that hypothetical person you are mourning agreed to give up their life to save the others if they were picked. i would absolutely agree to participate in sharing equal risk so that the majority of my crew could survive, whichever side i wound up on.
edit: furthermore the relatives of the victim in this case shook the hands of the surviving men. they understood completely.
Agreed. Their logic is sound.
@@diaperfang5293 “selfish animals” easy to say from someone who’s never been in that situation.
What made this case different was the nature of Richard's death. In usual cases of the custom whoever croaks first of natural causes is eaten, other times a volunteer would offer themselves up or straws were drawn. Tom and Edwin murdered a defenseless Richard so they could eat him on the basis of considering themselves more important.
The takeaway here is that these men absolutely sucked at fishing and hunting. There have been cases of men surviving for months in a tiny raft at sea by virtue of not being terrible fishermen.
The judge who whoever said there's no justification for murder....but it's ok to murder someone for murdering someone...that makes no sense.
It makes sense.... A death warrant/sentence issued legally as the punishment for murder, is not murder in itself. It is a judicial process. Same result though. Just that it is legal.
Murder vs killing is different they got the death penalty because they murdered Richard
@@Justin-cu4xi was it murder...is just a mercy euthanization? Drinking saltwater was a death sentence...a very painful one.
Not quite as gruesome as the Essex. That situation was unfathomable
I remember reading about this case in the 90’s when Alive was released and the topic of eating humans for survival purposes came into relevancy once again. I read about it again in a college law class because it was considered a landmark case. Thanks for the share.
You make my work days so much easier, dude. Thank you for the videos!
My only issue with that they did was that Richard was still alive. They even had to hold him down when they killed him. He didn't volunteer either. They could've just waited for him to die since it seems like he was on death’s door anyways. Who knows…maybe they all could've lived. It's too bad they didn't give Richard that chance but I’m not going to act like I don't understand because I do. What an awful situation to be in :(
I worked offshore crabbing in the Everglades for a coupoe years. Once, a storm came up on us put of nowhere, and we ended up hitting about 14-15ft waves. Now, i was 20 years old, young american kid who only speaks English. The captain was in his 80s, first mate in his 70s and neither of them speak english. I had never been in a storm like that so i was pretty freaked out. The hull ended up with a crack in it and we were taking water below deck. The old man was passing me buckets of water up and i was tossing them over the side. The captain comes down and tells me to give him my shirt. So i did, he goes down below and sticks my t shirt in the crack and it actually worked. Not perfectly, but enough to give us some breathing room. We ended up out of diesel somehow about 6 or 7 hours later, the captain mixed some liquids together from a few different jugs and dumped it in the fuel tank and got us home lol. As sketchy as the whole situation was, i trust those two old men with my life without a doubt. Theres been numerous times theyve saved us. Especially the captain. What a guy. Toughest guys ive ever met in my life. Missing fingers, teeth, you name it. I actually saw the first mate lose the tip of his pointer finger once. He put a small finger condom on it after smothering it in Vaseline and just kept on working. "no problem" he says. Man i miss those guys. I cant imagine being stranded at sea thats a true nightmare. Its a different world out there. I feel so bad for these guys in this video. Poor souls.
Its a pity they didnt wait till he actually passed away. Its actually a hard question.
THis was fascinating and informative. Thank you. Possibly my favorite on this channel so far.
Richard Parker’s grave is just round the corner from my childhood home. Of course none of his remains inside, his mother is buried in his place.
Moral of the story,
Never be on a boat with fools.
never be the fool that drinks sea water
There’s a story from my high school history class years ago that I’m trying to remember the specifics of but I wanted to throw what I could remember your way as a fellow Canadian.
During the early years of colonization and settlement in Canada there was an incredibly harsh winter that the European colonizers simply weren’t ready for. I don’t remember if it was a trading post or just a very large cabin where everyone gathered but when people were sent to check on the settlers after hearing no word they found the building littered with corpses and largely abandoned. Later, the sole survivor was found to be a boy somewhere between 14-17 who lived because an indigenous tribe came to provide assistance because they knew of the settlement and how horrid the winter had been.
They took the boy in and treated him like one of their own. He learned the language, customs, and was all together now a part of their tribe. When the British found the boy and the tribe they believed him kidnapped at first and there was nearly a skirmish before he was able to explain the situation. He ended up instrumental in relations between early British settlers and that tribe specifically. I don’t remember what happened to him in the end though.
Pretty sure this happened in the early 1800s to help find more about it. Was also either along the St. Lawrence Riverway or one of the Hudson Bay Company trapping trails
ive heard this same story but it wasn't in canada and it wasn't winter that killed them, it was a shiprwreck off one of the small pacific islands, and i'm pretty sure he covered it on this channel in the past
Yeah sounds pretty similar to that story. It was posted not too long ago.
@@TheElusiveReality I was thinking it sounded like similar circumstances, but honestly it's probably happened several times. Plenty of Native American tribes are documented to have absorbed groups of various sizes into their settlements, the most famous being Roanoke. In the story he covered the boy stayed with them for something like 17 years but in this one it sounds like he was found a lot sooner, maybe a few years for him to have time to integrate.
Its called Stockholm syndrom today.
@@littlebear274 There is no indication whatsoever that such a thing happened in regards to the roanoke colony
I've been dehydrated close to heat stroke (or maybe already there) three times in my life. Pounding headache, throwing up, hallucinating, and never once did i think, "you know, if I just ate my friend I'd feel better." Not sure what dehydration plus starvation does to you, but i don't think I'd have participated.
They should have just claimed that Richard Parker had already died and there would have been no case to answer.
Exactly. What happens in the open sea...stays out in the open sea.
The entire topic of consent is brought up in the custom, but the judges make no mention of it. Isn't that all that matters?
I read the story after this video, and this video got a lot of details wrong.
Consent doesn’t weigh nearly as heavy as necessity in life or death: remember, if consent were mandated all of them would’ve died. We’ve also never been in that situation.
Furthermore: currently law doesn’t care about consent, it simply outright forbids the practice. Meaning even if someone volunteered to be sacrificed, those who partook in the killing would still be liable for murder.
I imagine the prosecution used that heavily, but he kinda glossed over that so who knows
@@se7enthedge382 The point is if he didn't consent, it is simply cold blooded murder whatever the circumstances
consent doesn't matter at all, because it wasn't in the law anyway
I build cabinets for a living so i know full well that 1/4" flooring would be a nightmare to stand on. You can push a pencil through that thickness fairly easily depending on material
I'm calling BS on that 1/4" thick statement. I can't imagine anyone of that time to cut such thin wood for a boat but if so it would likely be solid Oak which is very tough.
What the hell do you build your cabinets out of anyway, balsa???
@@briandbeaudin9166 the 1/4" material is used as the back of the cabinets and the bottoms of drawers. We obviously don't build it all that thin
@@briandbeaudin9166 In the US cabinets are typically made with 1/2" or 3/4" plywood with a thin veneer of oak, maple, birch, etc.. The doors are generally 1/2" solid wood. Other parts such as the back and internal divider panels can be 1/8" to 1/4". Additional framing and support is often Poplar or Sprues/Pine.
@@nunya___ another fellow of culture, I see
At first I thought the newly implemented law was going to be one that prohibits anyone named Richard Parker from becoming a crew mate on any ship. Lol
Dude I have to tell you that your videos have gotten so much better over the last couple years I’ve been watching them! I love watching your videos. Thank you for making these!
my take is simply that, had they waited a couple more days, Richard would have likely died on his own by that point, and there wouldn't have been any issue. It's the fact that he was still alive, and they killed him that is the source of this question. Custom of the sea aside.
I don't think they had a couple more days.
The half dead guy would have lived longer that the very sick guys? In what world? @HotRod12667
@@sagunsingh7415 they just didn't have the time to wait for him to die, by that point they might be too weak to think clearly and probably end up drinking sea water themselves
Been on a binge with this channel and just so happened caught this upload right when it went up!
They were all on the verge of dying. And Richard Parker wasn't just "the weakest". He was also the person who was the closest to dying and was doing it the quickest because of his own actions to the point where he already could be dead even if he had "just" food and water in his current situation. In real-life screenplays, everything matters, not just the law. In reality, just "being a good person" doesn't mean that the law will always save you. For people who believe otherwise, I sincerely wish you will never end up in an actual situation that has no "good" solutions because these are the kind of people who then panic the most or close off and drift off reality the most and just make things far worse (and unfortunately every situation can be made worse really, even the ones we consider that are the worse at the moment).
Would like to say I wouldn't resort to that. But I've never experienced starvation so I can only hope I would not.
Isn’t having to live at sea for weeks and eat your own crewman punishment enough? I feel like “time served” could’ve been an appropriate compromise if the law insisted they had to be guilty by technicality.
I'm so sick to death of UA-cam ads why would any company think if we hate the company we are going to buy stuff from them it's getting ridiculous
I'd be dead, too picky of an eater, I have to worry about dying of malnutrition with a fridge full of groceries.
Why does no one talk about how this channel has the hardest intro in the game
The intro slaps
Because it's so hard that it goes without saying bro
You kids today and your lingo… 😂What does it mean that the intro is “hard”?
Perhaps no one is talking about it because it is SHAMEFUL that he has copied the 'trees at night with spooky music' image from Mr Ballen (who is the king). Seriously, couldn't this guy have found his own theme ???
Sounds like the "custom of the sea" should be "Do not let anyone named Richard Parker onto your boat."
I’m a former firefighter and we have a motto. You go, we go. I would never agree to the killing nor would I eat
I don’t know how one could prejudge one’s behavior in such an extreme survival situation.
The British were not only Pioneers of global travel, trade and innovation, they were also Pioneers of Judicial precedents and procedures. Precedents and procedures that underpin most of the Laws in the modern world today.
Fascism
Only because the British took over so many places and enforced their legal system. Literally every society has its own laws, it's not like everything was complete chaos before they came along.
@@littlebear274 Their Legal System was adopted by many many countries and territories.
@@littlebear274 Pre-Draconian/Draconian era Athens and much of Roman history would tend to say the opposite. Even with legal structure, chaos has many foxholes and burrows from which to propagate.
No one here online has a clue what they'd do until they were in this unfortunate situation.
Agree. 100%
In this case they murdered him without abiding by the customs, parker didn't have the opportunity to draw straws the other men just decided he was the best option. If he was so close to death why not allow him to pass away naturally?
When my vegetarian niece says' I would never eat that!' I say ' oh yeah you would.'
11:00 and then I get an ad for fish sticks 😂😂
The timing could've not been better
This was the very first case we studied on the very first day of Law School. Ruling: You can’t kill an innocent person to save your own life because their life is worth the same as yours.
But three lives are surely worth more than one life ?
@@gaz8891 The fundamental principal is that each of us has the exclusive right to keep our own life and we are under no obligation to sacrifice that life for others. We must volunteer. That’s why the cabin boy’s consent to draw straws is essential.
The courts weren’t wrong to question this. The guy that got killed specifically did not participate in the decision so the whole ‘custom of the sea’ is a red herring and not relevant; the custom wasn’t observed. The question is if two men conspire to murder a third to survive, is that a legally justified killing? Affirmatively defensible murder? If I was the guy about to be killed, I would also have disagreements with my being killed for food.
A classic lesson in “keeping your mouth shut.”
Any man strong enough to steal bread is strong enough to find work of some sort. Being lost at sea is a very very different story.
It's not different.
They could've found jobs there aswell
I don't know if that's true. I think there were probably many times in history when poor people couldn't find work and food for weeks on end, such as in mid-winter in the countryside when there were probably few farming jobs. Meanwhile, the upper classes who inherit land and wealth, are effectively using more than their share of resources and parasitizing the work of others, which is a type of stealing really.
I love these type of history stories being covered. Terrifying to realise how dangerous expeditions truly were
Wow. I never heard of this horrifying sinking. 😳
Another famous incident, if you haven't covered it, is the Essex which sank in 1820. The sanking was caused by a Whale as they were out haunting Whales. They divided into three boats, one gun, a type of biscuit, and a barrel of some type of drink. Thry also had turtles and navigation. Unfortunate one boat got separated and each set of men ended up doing the same. Only a few survived and that included three men who stayed on an island. The incident inspired Mobby Dick and many other movies, books, etc.
He talks about it like 9 and a half mins in
@@joeyhxnxho887😂yep
Graham Chapman, John Cleese et al had a novel solution to this dilemma in "The Lifeboat" sketch from the TV series Flying Circus.
Thank you Sean ❤ love these stories
Another great video. You have a great narrative voice! You’re a great storyteller!
Tbh the comparison with a starving man stealing a loaf of bread being unjustified is a good comparison.
Hmm, I think that in truth it IS justified but society agrees that it cannot be considered legally acceptable, cos of the inevitable consequences that would follow. ie. I think the law is pragmatic, and not always fair in individual cases.
capitalism prefers people starving and dying then allow a small loss in capital.
Honestly, I don't judge them at all and from the story told, it looks like it was absolutely fair...just tragic. It's not like they were some band of psychos ambushing travelers so they could eat them. This is survival and it's something pretty much any animal will do to survive. Most don't seem too thrilled about it either. It's survival. Except for maybe fish...they seem to just do it to do it lmao.
It's one thing to oppose canniablism as a general practice but it's heartless to oppose someone being forced to do it to survive. None of the people trying them for their "crime" had ever felt the degree of suffering they had to go through and yet felt fit to judge them.
It's unfortunate, but they didn't do anything evil in this exact circumstance.
One could argue, that they actually did good thing - Richard was goner either way, but at least he didn't have to suffer too long.
That’s the part where I am mixed. Soon as he drank the sea water he basically forfeit his own life anyway. They arguably put him out of his suffering when the end was near anyway. Even if rescued he likely wouldn’t have made it by the time they finally killed him.
There is 0 proof they were telling the truth.
YEEAAAH!!!! I always get excited when I open for work because it's always the days these videos come out snd I get to listen to theeeemmm!!!!!
So if they didn't kill him they would have died from starvation, but if they do, they live long enough to be put to death by the judicial system, If that's not a loose/loose situation idk what is 🤷🤷
*lose
Not a single person can write in the comments what they would have done in that situation unless they were actually in it
What would of happened if they waited for him to die naturally and then ate him? I mean it's not like they wanted to be stuck floating the sea for a month. Starving, dehydrating, getting cooked by the sun. I don't think they actually enjoyed having to drink blood and raw decomposing flesh.