The Shipwreck So Gruesome It Changed Laws 

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.

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

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.

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

@@lawrencetalbot83462 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.

​​@@lawrencetalbot8346its not that hard if you're a murderous cannibal

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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!

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.

Sean is the GOAT

I would love to hear your analysis from the laws perspective.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

Then you would be first on the Menu ,, Long Pig 😅

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

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'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

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

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.

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

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

Also could've avoided all charges by simply saying " Yep, the boy died, THEN we ate him." Like WTF? Right?

The intro slaps

Because it's so hard that it goes without saying bro

He talks about it like 9 and a half mins in

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.

I can't breathe 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Sea thots btfo.

Hear hear! 😅

There are a ton of clickbait channels that will be happy to get your views to feed the algorithm.

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.

You may end up in such situation on land as well. At least in one known case, where airplane crashed in mountains, survivors had to eat bodies of those who weren't so lucky, and that's how they survived long enough to be rescued.

Don't worry, there's always cave exploration to try.