Posted on 01/11/2008 7:35:03 PM PST by forkinsocket
“The man was not armed. Under the unwritten Law of the Sea, with which you are surprisingly unfamiliar given your service, the captain was “obligated*” (at minimum) to provide the man with some sort of means before abandoning him.
Even a life preserver would have sufficed. Feel free to reject my argument, but don’t expect to appear on a thread to write, “I think there is a ‘generally accepted Law of the Sea’ and it will probably absolve this skipper of any blame - it should,” without being corrected.
_____
*Meaning that, in order to satisfy the “unwritten” part.”
The only "defense" a captain could use in a case such as this ("duty to rescue") is that of "necessity," i.e., "I threw him overboard because the ship was ready to capsize."
Your misconceptions appear to spring from the fact that you fail to understand the unwritten Law of the Sea represents what mariners should do, and not what they can get away with if they can. Fine, you think the guy should have been thrown to the fishes--I don't have a problem with that, and the attitude sadly is common. But don't try to justify your opinion by citing to what is essentially a honor code for mariners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.