# Rules Of The Road – Post Disaster



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

We drive past other vehicles all day every day. What happens in a disaster situation? What are the rules of the road when it comes to dealing with an approaching vehicle? What if it’s been months since you’ve seen anyone on the road? What is the protocol?

The Scenario

You saw the TV news about civil unrest and mass panic shortly before the power went out. Shortly afterwards you could see the fires and hear the gunshots just down the street from your home moving closer and closer. You grabbed whatever you could and drove to the safety of a relative’s cottage property. This was almost three months ago and the power has not come on since. There is a fresh water creek and a well and some decent hunting. Food has not been a problem until recently as your stored supplies are starting to dwindle. 

None of the folks in the local area have come to visit. In fact you have not seen anyone other than your friends and family members the entire time. There is nothing on the FM or AM radio bands and the CB radio has no traffic. Still you fire up the generator and tune in every day just in case. Every day you only hear static. The cottage does not have a short wave radio. 

Due to civil unrest you felled some trees at the entrance from the main road to block access. Moving them would be a hassle so you’ve only taken a few walks by the main road. Not once have you seen any people or vehicles. Dinner conversation turns to curiosity about the outside world. It is decided by the group that someone needs to drive to the nearest town and find out what has happened or if anyone else is still out there. 

The next morning at sunrise you remove the barricade at the main road and you and three friends take the most rugged truck you have onto the road for the first time in three months. 

After driving for about ten minutes on the two-lane road you come across a group of abandoned cars. You hop out of the truck and cautiously approach the vehicles. The doors, trunks, and hoods are all open. The gas tanks are all empty with a hole neatly punched in the bottom of each tank. Some of the pickup trucks look like they have had parts stripped off of them. There are no signs of human life. 

Another ten minutes down the road you come across a gas station. You park under the canopy and hop out. The power is off and the inspection covers have been removed from the tanks and they are empty with only a faint smell of gasoline. The store itself is stripped bare with only empty shelving. There is a stain from what looks like dried blood and what look like drag marks. The four of you are all in the store when you hear the sound of an approaching vehicle. 

You can see a black crew cab lifted pickup truck coming down the road at a high rate of speed. The truck is covered in dirt and mud and looks like the bed of the truck is packed with people. 

What do you do?


----------



## jsriley5 (Sep 22, 2012)

What about an option to take cover be sure your armed and wait to see how the others act. I"d not want to take cover and aim a weapon at anyone who has not already proven themselves an adversary therby making an enemy you may not have had. But being armed is prudent and staying in cover is prudent. If they stop then one person can be sent forward to talk if they dont look anymore threatening than you do.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

There are only ten options slots on the poll. 

I think what you're suggesting would fall under the category of hiding. I'd assume that any person hiding would arm themselves and be on the look out for anyone who approaches.

It would also be interesting to know how you would determine if they are threatening looking. What makes a person look threatening? Is it their clothing? Is it their level of hygiene? Once society has collapsed won't most people look homeless? Or is everyone considered threatening until proven otherwise?


----------



## jsriley5 (Sep 22, 2012)

If they jump out and target my people they are threatening and doing exactly what I purposely avoided, pointing guns at unknowns and creating enemies where they didn't have them.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Boy my group messed up. Why did we park in the open? Why wasn't a look out posted? Why did we leave ourselves confrontation as our only option?

From that scenario, if the approaching truck is bad guys the group is screwed. Take cover and lose your vehicle n whatever supplies you have, and as an added bonus you've let the bad guys know there's people with resources near by. Or you fight against what sounds like superior numbers, who are looking for a fight. None of that sounds good.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

FatTire said:


> Boy my group messed up. Why did we park in the open? Why wasn't a look out posted? Why did we leave ourselves confrontation as our only option?
> 
> From that scenario, if the approaching truck is bad guys the group is screwed. Take cover and lose your vehicle n whatever supplies you have, and as an added bonus you've let the bad guys know there's people with resources near by. Or you fight against what sounds like superior numbers, who are looking for a fight. None of that sounds good.


Sometimes you have to deal with an imperfect situation. In this situation a lookout would have made no difference. You heard the truck before you saw it anyways.

The area around the station is a typical open gravel parking lot with no trees or cover that would hide the truck. Under the canopy was the place with the most concealment.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

Canadian said:


> There are only ten options slots on the poll.


yeah but you could have removed any one of them and substituted "worst choices ever" and gotten complete agreement with everyone reading the entire posit.

Why am I in a vehicle on a patrol in an area I have no idea about?
Why am I now out of that vehicle?
Why are ALL of us now out of that vehicle?
Why are ALL of us now in the SAME compartment outside the vehicle?
Why are ... this is getting silly.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Given the options, I think you have to find some high ground n send someone out. I'd like to think that a group we would be a prt of would avoid this type of scenario though. 

My thinking on sending someone out is that it gives the rest of the group the option of reducing the number of bad guys n the chance to escape n warn the home group. I think just running for it in the truck is a poor option because u lead them to your nest. driving at them is a poor option as it's aggressive n there's a chance they could friendly, but on edge. No sense provoking when you are already out gunned. 

I'll be reading for other thoughts tho...


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Dakine said:


> yeah but you could have removed any one of them and substituted "worst choices ever" and gotten complete agreement with everyone reading the entire posit.
> 
> Why am I in a vehicle on a patrol in an area I have no idea about?
> Why am I now out of that vehicle?
> ...


You can change variables in the scenario but when it comes down to it at some point in a disaster you will probably end up driving down a road and having another vehicle approach you.

If you could make your own scenario with an approaching vehicle what would you do?

No matter what scenario you come up with the options will pretty much be the same as the ones offered in the poll.

Write your own and post up what you would do.

@ FatTire

I like the way you are thinking. Thanks for an honest and well thought out answer.

This kind of makes me think of what it would be like for any group of people throughout history to make "first contact" with outsiders in a hostile environment.

That's essentially what the scenario is. A possible first contact.

I wouldn't be surprised if throughout history tribes would send one person forward to meet the new group. Your decision to send one person forward may indeed have roots that go very far back in human history.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Well, I think the best lesson learned from this sort of thought exercise is to avoid these kinds of scenarios. 

From a BOL, I would think observing the road out about 5 miles during the day, and scout out maybe ten miles once a week at night would be a good starting point. Gathering information while avoiding confrontation would be the mindset.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

FatTire said:


> *Well, I think the best lesson learned from this sort of thought exercise is to avoid these kinds of scenarios. *
> 
> From a BOL, I would think observing the road out about 5 miles during the day, and scout out maybe ten miles once a week at night would be a good starting point. Gathering information while avoiding confrontation would be the mindset.


I've always got the most interesting information from asking questions about what happens when the thing you are trying to avoid takes place.

Like what happens when your food runs out?

Or what happens when family and friends show up pounding on your door?

Can you avoid these situations? Maybe... I just find it far more interesting to know what would happen if you couldn't avoid it.

People post up a lot on canning and supplies but nobody ever posts up what to do when the mother in law shows up demanding food and shelter.

I think it's valuable to have honest answers for this theoretical situation not only for the perspective of the people venturing out from the cottage.

I also want to know because I might be the driver of the black pickup truck and I want to know how the scenario might unfold if I was approaching a the group from that perspective as well.


----------



## Gians (Nov 8, 2012)

I probably shouldn't vote, since we live in the suburbs and plan on staying in the home and making a stand with neighbors if ever needed. That said, great scenario, sounds like the beginning of a novel. If I was in that situation and had to make a choice, guess I'd have to assume they are hostile, due to earlier fires and gunshots and now seeing trashed cars + dried blood. Yes your group is outnumbered, but since they're behind some shelter already, I'd think most people probably won't want to risk being killed or wounded(no hospitals, meds, doctors). I'd talk :surrender: but do it from either behind the truck or through a broken window. Have to agree with FatTire, not getting into that situation in the first place would be best. Sure makes you think...lets hope and pray we never get to that point.


----------



## Indiana_Jones (Nov 15, 2011)

Dakine said:


> yeah but you could have removed any one of them and substituted "worst choices ever" and gotten complete agreement with everyone reading the entire posit.
> 
> Why am I in a vehicle on a patrol in an area I have no idea about?
> Why am I now out of that vehicle?
> ...


Hey c'mon now, chill out. Have you forgotten how to have a decent discussion? Many people need to discuss situations to help make up their mind how to move forward in life.


----------



## Tribal Warlord Thug (Jan 27, 2009)

three months into serious crap hittin' the fan..........the group would take cover soon as they heard the noise......jacked up pickup with a lot of fellers in it means 90% chance of no good types since they're still alive this far into it........soon as the trucks in range, bullet hole thru the drivers head and watch the day become very bad for 'em.........clean up shouldnt be much of a problem after the truck gitz done rolling and junkin' itself and occupants..........continue yer scavagin' and send a couple guys out to finish off what might have been a bad situation fer yer team..........3 months after crap hits the slinger aint gonna be no way in hell our group will take any chance of encountering an overwhelming force if we have the opportunity to take it out first..........simple  life will be hard and only the hard will have life


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

rabidcoyote666 said:


> three months into serious crap hittin' the fan..........the group would take cover soon as they heard the noise......jacked up pickup with a lot of fellers in it means 90% chance of no good types since they're still alive this far into it........soon as the trucks in range, bullet hole thru the drivers head and watch the day become very bad for 'em.........clean up shouldnt be much of a problem after the truck gitz done rolling and junkin' itself and occupants..........continue yer scavagin' and send a couple guys out to finish off what might have been a bad situation fer yer team..........3 months after crap hits the slinger aint gonna be no way in hell our group will take any chance of encountering an overwhelming force if we have the opportunity to take it out first..........simple  life will be hard and only the hard will have life


That's very cavalier, and you even have a handy catch phrase... Must be a pretty good shot too. I guess I'd be worried about murdering decent people. And missing a head shot at a moving target thru metal n glass. Big penalty for error if you miss.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Ideally, hide and see just who/what they are. Is the bed packed with familes? (i.e. men, women and children) or just guys with rifles visible? Or men with rifles and "captive" looking women? (perhaps dirty while the guys look clean or women appear to have been beaten, etc.) 

If it looks like all guys and guns are visible, remain hiding but get your weapons ready... i.e. layout extra mags, aim at them, etc. 

If it looks like families then perhaps send out one person, armed but not in a threatening fashion, to see if they want to stop and talk, rest remain hiding with aim still drawn on them.

If it looks like bunch of MZBs taking prisoners/slaves, then perhaps remain hiding, still aiming, and if they continue on, try to follow at a discrete distance... or if it's mostly "prisioners" and a few armed individuals then perhaps send out someone as a decoy, get them to stop and shoot the MZBs. Hopefully once you start making it a bad they for them the prisoners will jump in and assist in taking out the MZBs.

Lots of unknowns so hard to give any definitive type of answer.


----------



## Tribal Warlord Thug (Jan 27, 2009)

FatTire said:


> That's very cavalier, and you even have a handy catch phrase... Must be a pretty good shot too. I guess I'd be worried about murdering decent people. And missing a head shot at a moving target thru metal n glass. Big penalty for error if you miss.


 " Boy my group messed up. Why did we park in the open? Why wasn't a look out posted? Why did we leave ourselves confrontation as our only option?

From that scenario, if the approaching truck is bad guys the group is screwed. Take cover and lose your vehicle n whatever supplies you have, and as an added bonus you've let the bad guys know there's people with resources near by. Or you fight against what sounds like superior numbers, who are looking for a fight. None of that sounds good."

"Given the options, I think you have to find some high ground n send someone out. I'd like to think that a group we would be a prt of would avoid this type of scenario though.

My thinking on sending someone out is that it gives the rest of the group the option of reducing the number of bad guys n the chance to escape n warn the home group. I think just running for it in the truck is a poor option because u lead them to your nest. driving at them is a poor option as it's aggressive n there's a chance they could friendly, but on edge. No sense provoking when you are already out gunned.

I'll be reading for other thoughts tho..."

so instead of posting anything that would be what YOU would do, you poke the OP with idiotic what-ifs and give nothing meaningful in your responses to others................and by the way fatty....i am that good of a shot ........







.........cavalier my azz


----------



## mojo4 (Feb 19, 2012)

Well definitely pile back up in the truck. No sense being on foot when you truck is nearby. I would drive slowly towards them with guns ready. No sense starting a fight but deifintely not drive towards base camp for them to follow. You have to assume since they are on the prowl they might be low on fuel n ammo since they have to fight much more often than you ever did. So since you can't run away to home might as well approach and say hi. If they are violent carjacker mutant zombie biker thugs I will take as many with me as possible but at least in a car chase I have a decent chance of pitting them out and survivng. On foot you get hunted down like a slow bunny. Maintain mobility at all times. If curious, google PITT manuveur.


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

No hypothetical will ever be able to duplicate a real-life situation, but it's still a good mental exercise. We each formulate a plan based on our own experiences, beliefs, desires, and unfortunately, biases as well.

The scenario presented appears to be in a geographic location that is very DIS-similar from mine, so it's not an easy exercise for me. I do, however, have a few basic "rules-of-thumb" that, perhaps, really only apply to my own locale, and the culture of those around me. Having said that, here goes:

First, I would never put tires where feet had not already been. Foot reconnaissance on a daily basis with a two or three person team (that's about all that will be available in my own area under conditions that I believe would be realistic) that explored further and further. Any vehicle we employ would be solely to bring the team to the last farthest point reached, and then concealed until it was time to return. In this case, we would not have the vehicle at that location. Around here, terrain which is un-navigable by vehicle is only a hundred or so yards away at most. If the "forces" were unfriendly, they would be forced to pursue on foot, *if* they spotted us. If not, it would give us time to observe their actions and possibly overhear part of their conversation. Upon their departure, their direction of travel would be noted and that would be the direction of our next sojourn. At some point, we would be able to determine if they're friendly or hostile. That's when any decision to make contact would be made, and until then, avoided.

I guess I'm still stuck on the old 1st rule of travel... stay off any un-reconnoitered path. Whether it's a highway or a cow-path, if I'm not familiar with it, I'll side-step it and bushwhack.

...neither will I kick a can that I didn't just put there myself... (is that familiar to anyone?) 

YMMV

Thanks for the exercise!

God Bless.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

Chill out guys... its a hypothetical scenario with limited input and limited options.

Given the information I have and the options I would basically put some folks inside the station and some in the woods nearby (if cover is available) and aim at the the passengers of the truck. Given the distance we saw the truck coming I assume this can likely all be done without giving away your position or the fact that you have more than one person in the group. The incoming group doesnt know what force they are encountering.

If the truck drives past then we post lookouts and continue our scavaging then without wasting much time carefully head back to camp to make sure they didnt follow our tracks back to our camp.

If the truck stops the passengers will probably broadcast their intentions fairly quickly even without us having to confront them. In short order someone has to find out their intentions (hopefully from cover) while the rest of the party provides cover.

If their intentions are good then we have made a tentative ally. Gather intel (which was the purpose of going out in the first place) and be careful not to give out too much details. Remember OPSEC but dont try to intimidate or threaten.

If their intentions are bad then cut them to ribbons. We should have cover from the gas station where they only have the vehicle. They will most likely take off in their truck at the first sign of resistance. If we have cover outside the gas station we should be able to pick them off with impunity or at least be able to take them out with cross fire which leaves them with few places of cover. 

If they truck up and run in the direction they came from we post lookouts and continue scavaging. Quickly getting back to camp where we prepare for a possible invasion.

If they truck up and head toward camp we quickly get in out truck and cautiously pursue... we are outnumbered and dont want a confrontation but we dont want our camp surprised while we are out foraging either. If we get back to camp and the truck passed our position we prepare for a possible invasion.

Good scenario... makes you think. Thanks!


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Thanks for the responses everyone keep them coming. The truck could be just about anyone. It could be people from the next town, national guard, police, farmhands, refugees, prisoners, hostages, who knows?

However, who they are isn't as important as who you think they might be. Judging by the poll so far any vehicle coming down the road has about a 50% chance of rifle scopes pointed at them.

On the way to work I drive on the highway and pass literally tens of thousands of cars going in the opposite direction. It's totally meaningless. Post disaster a totally routine event takes on a whole new meaning. 

What I find even more interesting than the poll results is that some people find the scenario of an approaching vehicle so scary that they refuse to even entertain the idea of answering the question. 

Which is odd because you can't prepare for a scenario simply by saying "it would never happen to me." That's what the non-prepping population says everyday. 

In a disaster it's almost a guarantee that at some point, no matter how you prepare, you will be approached by a vehicle full of people. I think anyone who refuses to even think about this scenario is setting themselves up for panic if it ever happens in real life - which is pretty much guaranteed. 

What's the protocol for your group is a vehicle approaches? So far nobody knows. Maybe with the poll results we'll at least know how the majority of us will react. That reaction might be enough to come up with a protocol.

Yes you can do recon on foot etc. Hide and observe the truck. The question is - do you ever make contact with the people in the truck? If the answer is yes how do you do it? No matter what the scenario your options are always going to be the same as the ones in the poll. If the answer is no. Are you going to hide from the rest of the world forever?


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

Canadian said:


> In a disaster it's almost a guarantee that at some point, no matter how you prepare, you will be approached by a vehicle full of people. I think anyone who refuses to even think about this scenario is setting themselves up for panic if it ever happens in real life - which is pretty much guaranteed.


...and therein lies the rub....

You're right! It *is* a guarantee... It *will* occur. Even here in my rural home there will be other people coming around. Chances are, I'm actually going to *recognize* the people in the truck! The population of my town really is just about that small... In some ways, that can present an even more difficult scenario than you painted. The question would more likely be _*"How do we deal with outsiders nosing around?"*_
:dunno:

What it seems to boil down to in my feeble little mind is this:
How does one reconcile the competing components of fear, and the human need for company?

Isn't this forum itself proof that we have a need for interaction with people of like-mind?

We're all afraid of each other, yet we all need to have contact with each other. We are, after all, social creatures. (whether we like it or not!) If and when society collapses, the need to find others will be that much more imperative.

...and greater also, will be the fear of what we may find...

God Help us all...

Be well


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

Friend or Foe?

I’d take cover, aiming at them (prepare for the worst hope for the best) until I could determine which they were. If I couldn’t make a determination then I’d stay hidden.

Friend’s are hard to come back especially during a SHTF. My survival would be reduced by killing off potential friends.


----------



## dirtgrrl (Jun 5, 2011)

I don't think I'd leave myself so exposed. Like Outpost, I think I'd be doing a lot of stealthy recon before I openly traveled the area. 

I would also "bait" the area to see if and how the bait was taken. It may tell me a lot without letting them know too much. Like maybe a food can that looks like it was dropped in haste.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

The senario gave evidence of a somewhat organized salvage operation. the truck traveling at high speed with the back full of people would make me nervous, I also think that the signs of previous salvaging would make the scout group more cautious and should have had at least 1 member watching/ listening for possible trouble. if possible on any kind of investigation at least 1 should be on oversight IMO


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Let's look at the original mission:
_
Gather Intel._

You cant do that if you kill everyone you meet (from the moral aspects aside.. would you, minding your own business, maybe coming back from a trade run, or a salvage run, want to be shot at , w/o warning, would that be ok? I say no and would have to think very hard before i start a shooting at others for the mere reason that they exist. ).

So I think this is a rational approach:

a)As others mentioned it depends on their appearance and your cabailities:

Since you are out gathering intel, I am sure you have binoculars of some kind. (I have 1 in my BOB and one in my almost BOL, Steiner 8x30 Safari under 200 for a _German made _Bino..))

1)Look the truck over.

If they are all well-armed men, they might still be good guys (after all doesnt that describe your party as well?) but it would be way too risky to let them know you're there, *if* your combat power is much less.

If they are poorly armed and you are well armed (Ar-15 and up) ex-military.. well even 3 of you in prone position or behind cover will be more than a match for 5-10 people _in the open _armed with shotguns, bolt actions etc..

This gives you tactical options and even though outnumbered, the combination of cover and better arms and training, actually might make you the superior force.

Even in that case, it would still be a sinificcant risk to just start a fire fight especially in a world were one small wound would spell likely death.

2) If they are many men, well armed and you are poorly armed and with your BIL Joe-Bob who is overweight and can't hit the side of a barn then HIDE.

With so many other vehicles standing around they <might> not notice your truck is different...
If they do notice and check it out, then reply firmly, by forbidding them to approach the truck and if they do anyway _then_ you can open fire.

b) If the occupants look like a couple normal families then your risk is _much _lower.

They will not want to start a firefight with their families right there so approach them,.. _one person_ trying to gather intel might be prudent. 
He could stand next to cover, his weapon out of sight behind a piallr or something and just raise your hand..

They _might_ just drive past, but they probably wont shoot at you for no reason ,if you are not aiming a weapon.
But they _might_ stop and you can exchange information.

You will get the best of that conversation, since you know nothing, but they are mobile and therefore know a lot more.
Maybe even key informatin that could save your soon-starving group.

Remember folks.. we are not on a walk for the fun of it, or to channel our first person shooter gamer, but we need to take care of our group.
We cant do this by attacking others for no reason and get nothing out of it.

So in summary *METT-T dictates* (Mission, Enemy,Troops (yours) Time, Terrain) your actions.
A lot of folks forget about the _Mission_ part whe they play thru scenarios.

No doubt a result of all that consequence-less computer gaming, many of us encounter in our lives.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

The poll results are shaping up in an interesting way. It's now about 60% of all people aiming guns at the people in the truck. In today's society it would be considered extreme to point a gun at someone. Maybe in a post-disaster world pointing a gun at a stranger when you first meet them will be considered normal.

I'm reminded of scenes in the movie Book Of Eli where when Eli meets people it is common for them to start the conversation while pointing a gun or other weapon at them. Perhaps pointing a weapon will be the new normal in a post-disaster world. 

@ BlueZ - I can tell that you did indeed read the scenario carefully. Yes, the group has checked the radio daily and had no audio of any kind. Walks down by the main road barricade gave no sign of vehicles or people for three months. Dwindling supplies and a sense of curiosity about the status of the outside world caused the group to elect to send out a scouting party.

Intel is what the group was seeking. Observing people is a way to get a little intel. You can't get much if the vehicle is simply passing by. The best intel would come from a conversation with one or more of the people in the truck. How the conversation starts and how it ends will be critical in terms of determining the future repercussions of the encounter. 

Some very good info in your post. Thanks for sharing. 

Most people have problems finding an opening line to use when picking up a person at a bar.

In this situation your opening line could save or end your life. Sure makes you think differently about breaking the ice with strangers.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

While I am as Darwinian as the next guy and am proud of my ability to rapidly put out aimed fire, every interaction cannot involve pointing guns at each other.

At least those that survied 3 months will not be the ones whose default it is to right away set a situation up for escalation.

Have your gun ready, maybe even hold it in both hands.. But do NOT point it at the other guy.. that makes the risk of starting a needless firefight astronomically high.

Maybe the first couple weeks everyone will still act how they "learned" from post-apocalytpic movies and novels to act... 

After 3 months though, those still alive will guard their security w/o going out of their way to provoke others into needless firefights with irreplacable ammo (in a world where every small wound can also mean an ugly death)


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

BlueZ said:


> Have your gun ready, maybe even hold it in both hands.. But do NOT point it at the other guy.. that makes the risk of starting a needless firefight astronomically high.


The veterans I know from the middle east would routinely point weapons at any approaching vehicle especially at any kind of base or checkpoint. They would even do so while driving in traffic.

None of them thought that pointing a weapon increased the risk of a fight. They actually thought it decreased it because nobody would try and draw down on your if you were already set to open fire on them. Vehicles that were "too close for comfort" would back off when guns were pointed.

Judging from the poll results so far the voting certainly backs up the opinion of the soldiers.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Canadian said:


> The veterans I know from the middle east would routinely point weapons at any approaching vehicle especially at any kind of base or checkpoint. They would even do so while driving in traffic.
> 
> .


I am all pro military (23 yrs in Army) BUT

A military checkpoint in an occupied country is a *comepletly* different operation:

- Its already established that you possess overwhelming force and could wipe out the car in front of you with ease
- There is a generally accepted standard that you are the "authorities" in some way or another
- your "customers" are generally not openly armed and most certainly do NOT point a gun at you in return ..... and if they do... you _will open fire _...right away just for them showing a gun.. never mind pointing it.. (so this military experience actually makes the opposite point, just because somoene is ex-military doesnt mean every rembered procedure from out int the box will make sense for a domestic SHTF situation...)
- *No one passing through* a checkpoint, will be in the habit of opening fire at a checkpoint ,just because (imagine dying breath) "Why, that guy pointed a gun at me, Uncle Hoss!"
- the public expects to be stopped and possibly held at bay at gunpoint.

Think about how trigger happy some of the other posters here were, just because someone dared drive down the road???
Now imagine, what those same guys are gonna do ,if u are in talking distance, yet point a gun at them..??

Instant firefight thats what.

You do not want to go around SHTF (or any other time) provoking a firefight with every single person you meet.
It will severely curtail survival.

Military checkpoints during a ,military occupation is a _completely different _situation.
Military experineces are good to draw from, but common sense dictates, that they most certainly are not a behavior template that will work in all other , or even in most, other situations....

We publish different SOG's for different situations. (Standard Operating Guide)
Because differnt situations are operationally distinct and doing what works in one, may get people killed in another (and not always the right ones)


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

BlueZ said:


> A military checkpoint in an occupied country is a *comepletly* different operation.
> 
> - its already established that you possess overwhelming force
> - there is a generally acceped standard that you are the "authories" in some way or another
> ...


Do you have overwhelming force?

Only when the Taliban are not around. Especially in a built up area with lots of civilians where you can't call in artillery or air support. When the Taliban outnumber you they have overwhelming force.

Accepted as an authority?

Again, only if the Taliban are not around. Who the authority is depends on who is in town at that moment.

Nobody will open fire at a checkpoint?

They certainly do open fire at checkpoints. Sometimes for completely absurd reasons. Even ANA have opened fire on troops at checkpoints.

The public expects to be stopped at gunpoint?

No they don't. In fact a lot of vehicles got shot up because people didn't even expect to have to slow down or stop their vehicle for a checkpoint. Lots of people died because they lacked the common sense to hit the brakes.

I think a disaster area could be very much like a war zone. In fact civil war situations fall into this exact category.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

Let's flip the script for a moment.

Would YOU drive up on someone you don't recognize with a truck full of people? I seriously doubt any one here would. 

Now back to me being person seeking outside contact. Someone driving at my location, with a load of people equals Strike 1 and Strike 2 if we're playing baseball. When they're in range and obviously not just passing by, they get a literal shot over the bow.

Ideally, your group has a functional leader. At the leader's signal/command, they know what to do. Cover, safeties off, maintain muzzle on target as much as possible without obscuring threat areas (hands), maintain 540 degree awareness and COMMUNICATE. 

If not, you're fooked if things heat up. You may/may not know the terrain, but you certainly haven't scouted for activity. 

At this point I'm a few degress of muzzle and a few lbs of pressure away from Rabid 'yote's position.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

SOP for approaching vehicles, off the cuff:

- If it's an armored vehicle or vehicle column, turn around and scat if you have time/distance. If they want to give chase, stick it in the woods and immediately dismount, move out of sight in an orderly fashion. It should be your terrain/familiarity they have to deal with.

If they're close, yield and get off road. Dismount, disperse, go deep and far away (your terrain). Avoid contact at all, or hasty ambush/J-hook as many times as needed. One truck isn't worth a firefight with superior numbers. Heck, set the truck on fire if it's Motley Crue approaching.

If it's a single, like vehicle with only a few people you do not know... it will depend. I favor immediately leaving the road, protecting the truck as much as possible and dismounting/spread out to deal with any further actions (good or bad). Another option is to flash headlamps or otherwise indicate you see them; keep engine running when you stop; dismount/take positions (see previous post) well before they stop. Leader may choose to sling their own weapon to symbolize your non-threatening stance while others keep at ready. Then call it from there.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Canadian said:


> Do you have overwhelming force?
> 
> Only when the Taliban are not around. Especially in a built up area with lots of civilians where you can't call in artillery or air support. When the Taliban outnumber you they have overwhelming force.
> 
> ...


A checkpoint is designed for a situation as described. 
What you do is list insurgents or accidents.
It does not change what it is designed to accomplish.

_Of course _the reason that you are so vigilent ,is because there are folks that do not accept your authority and/or might shoot at you etc etc etc.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

One more thing; terrain is an extremely important consideration. Each has its own dangers.

Urban movement/fighting is risky unless it's your 'hood. 

Wooded areas offer plenty of opportunities for ambush. You can watch for sign, but it's too late if you're at speed in a vehicle.

Open areas are known as a Danger Area to military people. The area can be as small as an acre to hundreds of acres around you. It is preferred to skirt the area using the terrain features at the edge of the Danger Area--but even this can be a Natural Line of Drift or a Fatal Funnel. Very few tactics exist to cover Danger Areas reasonably safely and timely. A vehicle is worse because you're all in one space at the same time.

OP, man... just this morning I was crossing a small bridge over a usually-dry creek thinking what a choke point it would be if TSHTF. How it would be a night and day difference.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Fn/Form said:


> OP, man... just this morning I was crossing a small bridge over a usually-dry creek thinking what a choke point it would be if TSHTF. How it would be a night and day difference.


I'm in the same boat,...even though I been a REMF for many years now I still cant help but notice defensible terrain features, or a good field of fire, when I travel.
:scratch


----------



## Startingout-Blair (Aug 28, 2012)

It seems that one thing the OP mentioned was the use of a CB radio for listening, which I would figure was a home base type setup. That means, more than likely, each vehicle, or at least the one you are scouting with probably also has a CB radio. This means you do have communication with your BOL home base. You have the ability to keep them informed of what is happening and either have backup on the way or hVe them prepared for potential attack, just in case. I do agree, when scouting, I would not have parked the vehicle in front of the gas station. I would have hidden it close by, and recon the station by foot, being fully prepared in case of meeting other people. 

I ran this scenario past a non-military buddy of mine. He said he would have had one person lay out on the parking lot as if they were hurt or dead and the others hidden with weapons ready. Depending on the group's reaction to the first guy, the rest have the drop on them. I asked my friend if he wanted to be the bait guy. He said "no". I agreed and told him no one else would want to either. Lol


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

In the scenario described in the OP. I did not get the impression that the folks who are in this cabin are of the prepper persuasion. Also, no mention of the recon group being armed, however, because there is a choice to cover and take aim (which was my vote), I will assume they ARE armed, but I am not going to assume they are well trained or trained at all for that matter.

With that said.

With all of the unknowns going on, I think the best plan would be to take cover, cover the newcomers, watch and evaluate. If by their actions they seem to be volatile and hostile, then the best course of action would be to TRY to maintain cover as to avoid detection. If they seem like non-MZB's, and don't appear to be hellbent on rape and pillage, then I would probably make verbal contact with them, still from cover. If they don't see us they don't know how many we are, possibly giving us the advantage of a measure of control.
Because the original mission is Intel gathering, since the Intel came to you, you may as well take advantage of it. Even maintaining cover and observing would be Intel gathering, mission accomplished. 

The whole idea is to stay alive, right? Getting into firefights reduce the chances of survival exponentially. 

Observe from cover.

Evaluate, from cover.

Communicate, from cover. (IF you don't think they are MZB's)

If all hell breaks loose, you are already under cover, fight, from cover, if you have no choice.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Pandamonium is right. Observe and evaluate from cover. Initiate any contact on your terms in a situation you create and control. To that end I would pull my truck around the other side of the building and hide. Hope they pass us by. I would be able to quickly pull out and run. I would also pull a "lights out" and get on the horn with folks back at camp to set up an ambush for em away from our road in case they try and chase us down if we have to run. If contact is made than low ready is the least defensive weapon position I would consider safe. Tell em just passing through and dont live nearby. Would prefer to find their spot and watch em for a bit before making contact.


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

BlueZ said:


> Military checkpoints during a ,military occupation is a _completely different _situation.
> Military experineces are good to draw from, but common sense dictates, that they most certainly are not a behavior template that will work in all other , or even in most, other situations....
> 
> We publish different SOG's for different situations. (Standard Operating Guide)
> Because differnt situations are operationally distinct and doing what works in one, may get people killed in another (and not always the right ones)


Absolutely!
One of our greatest social problems, IMHO, is the *quick-fix on-size-fits-all solution* mentality. We've all succumbed to it from time to time, but we have to recognize the radical difference in situations.

I'm not a 23 yr vet (Thank you and God Bless you, b.t.w.), but I know a _little_ about some things.

I know that it's difficult to reach deep down past our desires to be big badd-azz Rambo-types and come up with the stark raw reality of looking at another human over sights. It's not something any thinking ethical person _*wants*_ to do, even to an enemy, much less a probably innocent American in a similar dyer situation.

What I must say surprises me a little is the majority tendency to decide on an action based on whether or not one has sufficient force to *win* a deadly encounter.

Even with superior and overwhelming force, until I had some kind of information regarding their disposition, I would avoid confrontation. They could just as easily be nothing more than a scout group for a much larger horde. I know if *MY* recon group came up missing, I would probably assume the worst, and go hunting.

All the best.


----------



## cnsper (Sep 20, 2012)

Rabid Coyotes are usually the only thing shot on site. Immediately taking out the driver is only going to escalate things quickly. If you get a reputation of shooting first then you will be hunted like a rabid coyote when all your neighbors ban together to take out the danger. The people that tamed the old west were Ranchers, Farmers and Shop Keepers. It was not the military as some like to think.

Now if they start to fire on you while they are still moving, forget the driver for a moment and take out one of the front tires. You did say it was a big ole 4x4 after all. Take the one closest to the ditch and hope it pulls them in and causes it to roll.

You do not just indiscriminately start shooting folks because you think they may be dangerous but pointing guns in their general direction is not out of reason either.

My choice would be to hide and speak from cover. Chances are that if you heard the vehicle there was not enough time to move your truck behind the building so they are going to stop and investigate and scavenge.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Startingout-Blair said:


> *It seems that one thing the OP mentioned was the use of a CB radio for listening, which I would figure was a home base type setup. That means, more than likely, each vehicle, or at least the one you are scouting with probably also has a CB radio. This means you do have communication with your BOL home base. You have the ability to keep them informed of what is happening and either have backup on the way or hVe them prepared for potential attack, just in case.* I do agree, when scouting, I would not have parked the vehicle in front of the gas station. I would have hidden it close by, and recon the station by foot, being fully prepared in case of meeting other people.
> 
> I ran this scenario past a non-military buddy of mine. He said he would have had one person lay out on the parking lot as if they were hurt or dead and the others hidden with weapons ready. Depending on the group's reaction to the first guy, the rest have the drop on them. I asked my friend if he wanted to be the bait guy. He said "no". I agreed and told him no one else would want to either. Lol


True. The cottage does have a CB radio and and AM/FM radio but no short wave and no scanner. No traffic has been heard on either for three months. The group has been listening for three months but has never made a transmission. It is safe to say your truck also has a CB. However, CB transmissions are not encrypted or scrambled in any way. Anyone else with a CB on that channel would be able to hear everything you say.

The other group in the black truck may also have a CB but it is also possible that they are maintaining radio silence for security purposes. It would be interesting to note under what circumstances a group would use a radio. Do you use code words? Do you not talk about certain topics? Or do you transmit miss-information to mislead people who might be listening?

Thanks again to everyone for the replies. Keep them coming and remember not just to post your response but to also vote on the poll.


----------



## Tribal Warlord Thug (Jan 27, 2009)

cnsper said:


> Rabid Coyotes are usually the only thing shot on site. Immediately taking out the driver is only going to escalate things quickly. If you get a reputation of shooting first then you will be hunted like a rabid coyote when all your neighbors ban together to take out the danger. The people that tamed the old west were Ranchers, Farmers and Shop Keepers. It was not the military as some like to think.
> 
> Now if they start to fire on you while they are still moving, forget the driver for a moment and take out one of the front tires. You did say it was a big ole 4x4 after all. Take the one closest to the ditch and hope it pulls them in and causes it to roll.
> 
> ...


this tripe comin' from the mouth of someone who says this....

and i'll quote ya..."You know that is why divers carry a knife. Shark comes around just cut your buddy and swim away... LOL"

the last part of the OP'z ? was this..................."Another ten minutes down the road you come across a gas station. You park under the canopy and hop out. The power is off and the inspection covers have been removed from the tanks and they are empty with only a faint smell of gasoline. The store itself is stripped bare with only empty shelving. There is a stain from what looks like dried blood and what look like drag marks. The four of you are all in the store when you hear the sound of an approaching vehicle.

You can see a black crew cab lifted pickup truck coming down the road at a high rate of speed. The truck is covered in dirt and mud and looks like the bed of the truck is packed with people.

What do you do?"
:sssh:


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Yeah, can't believe that someone who would joke around could possibly be serious later..


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

rabidcoyote666 said:


> ...looks like the bed of the truck is packed with people...


That is, to me, the whole key to the response. Just about everything else is mostly irrelevant to me.

You really need to know the specifics on the people to offer an educated answer... so far I've seen most of the replies based on assuming the truck is full of a bunch of MZBs or assuming the people are all armed. Without details (sex, age, apparent condition, armed or not, etc.) on the people an answer really is just a guess.

To analyze it a bit more, the truck is close enough to tell the color, that it's lifted and to tell there are many (packed) people in the back. That's really about a block, maybe 500 feet at most, away. If it's traveling at a high rate of speed (as given) and is that close already, then chances are it isn't stopping or it would have already began braking and would be noticeably slowing down. Since we're all inside the gas station, sight lines that allow us to see those given details probably puts the truck within 300 feet or less.

For perspective, at 55mph, you go about 80 feet per second. So, at 300 feet, that's 4 seconds until the truck is past or a bit over 6 seconds at 500 feet. Four seconds is about enough time to duck, six might allow for a few few steps and then ducking. No running into the woods, no running out to the truck, no time for someone to run out and play dead. Perhaps just barely enough time for someone to get to the doorway and wave to try to get their attention if that's your approach. Even if the truck were 1320 feet away (a quarter mile... and way to far in my opinion to just notice that it's packed with people and such), you have about 16 seconds before they are literally on top of you. Just telling someone to go play "bait" and that the rest would cover them would take at least 5 seconds plus another 5-10 seconds for them to run out and get into position. No where enough time for them not to notice the bait getting into position.

So, looking at this logically, you have maybe 2-4 seconds to do whatever you're going to do without knowing anything other than a truck full of unknown people is rapidly approaching.


----------



## Tribal Warlord Thug (Jan 27, 2009)

2-4 seconds to decide if you might live or die.............exactly the way a survivor would/will think.......


----------



## cnsper (Sep 20, 2012)

rabidcoyote666 said:


> this tripe comin' from the mouth of someone who says this....
> 
> and i'll quote ya..."You know that is why divers carry a knife. Shark comes around just cut your buddy and swim away... LOL"


And that is a running joke with divers. Obviously no one is going to purposely put blood in the water when there are sharks around. That would just be stupid. And that was in response to the joke about being able to run faster than your buddy when being chased by a bear. Really had to dig for that one didn't you. Just like the one about spreading cheese whiz on their tank valve so the fish go after them.


----------



## Tribal Warlord Thug (Jan 27, 2009)

:newsign:................................


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

rabidcoyote666 said:


> 2-4 seconds to decide if you might live or die.............exactly the way a survivor would/will think.......


I would think it a somewhat better survival strategy to work thru scenarios so that as much as possible we can avoid low percentage situations...

While I am fully confident I could pull the trigger, I'd prefer to have other options.


----------



## SouthCentralUS (Nov 11, 2012)

Perhaps they were traveling at a high rate of speed to escape the bad guys?


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

rabidcoyote666 said:


> 2-4 seconds to decide if you might live or die.............exactly the way a survivor would/will think.......


Things can change very quickly. That's why it is important to have protocols for certain situations set in advance. If you have pre-set plans for certain situation ahead of time you can all react as a group quickly.

This is why I like to get people's opinions on these situations. Again the comments are great and the poll results are telling the tale. Lots of people wanting to take aim. It will be interesting to see if this is a trend that will hold up as more people vote on the poll.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Canadian, if my distance/sightlines/speed estimates are reasonable, then the majority of the options are no longer valid.

In 2-4 seconds, and even the 1/4 mile variable (maybe 12 useful seconds) you would not have time to probably do any of the following:

Get in the truck and drive away from them. 
Get in the truck and drive towards them. 
Get in the truck and block the road. 
Walk to the road and wave at them. 
Walk to the road and motion for them to stop. 
Walk to the road and yell for help. 
Send one person to the road while the rest of you hide. 

All you would really have time to do is hide (duck down), hide and aim or fire a shot. I really think it's 2-4 seconds of response time as, at a 1/4 mile, you're really going to be most likely looking almost straight on at the truck. There won't be enough of an angle on your sight line to see the bed or what's in it so unless a bunch of people are standing up in the bed (and sticking out over the cab) you won't know that part until it's much closer and you have a better viewing angle on it. Of course traveling at a high rate of speed pretty much means no one will be standing in the bed... at least not for long!


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

Ok. I admit it. I only just now "voted".

I picked the "take cover-and-aim" option, although it's more like "take cover and *prepare* to aim...

I just can't get over my aversion to looking at another human over sights... unless *they* make it necessary.... Then, ok... all bets are off... but not until...

Sorry... I'm just funny about that $^!t....

:usaflag:


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Outpost said:


> Ok. I admit it. I only just now "voted".
> 
> I picked the "take cover-and-aim" option, although it's more like "take cover and *prepare* to aim...
> 
> ...


 Understood, but in this type of situation, everyone you meet could be dangerous to you and yours. Precautions will have to be taken to ensure your safety. If that means I have a firearm pointed at a person, then so be it, if it means pulling the trigger so me or my loved ones will continue to breath, no brainer there too.


----------



## bugoutbob (Nov 11, 2012)

LOved this. More scenarios would be great to stimulate discussion


----------



## Cabowabo (Nov 6, 2012)

I wouldn't be on the main road to begin with, I wouldn't of brought the vehicle to begin with. I'm assuming this is a recon patrol, report back anything that is suspicious to the main base. All Weapons would have a round in the chamber but weapons on safe. If they are heading towards the compound, report it in. 

If its a raiding mission. Recon goes out first gets intelligence and provides over-watch as the raiding or assaulting is happening. Again no vehicles, foot patrols with noise, light, and litter discipline.


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> Understood, but in this type of situation, everyone you meet could be dangerous to you and yours. Precautions will have to be taken to ensure your safety. If that means I have a firearm pointed at a person, then so be it, if it means pulling the trigger so me or my loved ones will continue to breath, no brainer there too.


You'll get no argument from me there!!!!!

I've been licensed to carry since '77. I don't display, I don't brandish, and I don't warn. If it comes out, it goes off.

I just had a conversation with a local L.E.O. pertaining to guns that are "Sporting" as compared to guns that "are designed for killing only" (the inference was the AR). My response was "So what's your point?". My home is not a "Sport". My wife is not a "Sport". If, for example, someone bashes into my home, I want my wife to have overwhelming firepower and unlimited ammo. (12-g Semi-auto bull-pup with a 100rnd drum would be my fantasy tool.... but I digress....) 

My only point being, capability is not synonymous with desire. I'm not going to kid myself (nor anyone else, for that matter) into thinking I have any "desire". I *will* remove a threat as decisively as is physically possible. On the flip-side.... I ain't Rambo, and I know it!

:beercheer:

All the best.
Stay well.


----------



## GrinnanBarrett (Aug 31, 2012)

the situation is not stated clearly enough here. It all depends on the status of what you are doing and where you are. If you are off the road you tend to stay low until you can clearly see who and what you are dealing with. Are you outnumbered and outgunned? Are you moving down the road and they are approaching you from the opposite direction? 

One thing that is going to be the toughest for most people is the family broken down on the side of the road. What do you do? Do you stop and take the chance they are a decoy to see who will stop to be robbed? What if the dad sees that you have stuff and he wants it for his family and to you know where with you and yours? 

I think one thing will become very evident when things get bad and that is the weak and unarmed will die first or wish they had. Heavily armed groups will tend to shy away from each other in that neither one wants to take on possible unnecessary fire fights. The bad guys will tend to stake out areas where they can work with the least amount of travel first. Road blocks are going to be more of a problem for travelers. Road blocks can be both good and bad. Some communities will set up road blocks to keep out extra mouths to feed. Bad guys will set them up to get food, water, valuables and women. 

IF you plan to travel to your BOL do it enough prior to the bad times to get to know the locals well. It is much easier to pass when they know you well. GB


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

It is interesting to see everyone's reaction to these situations. My first reaction when I read the scenario is "GET SOMEONE ON THE ROOF". It must be something in me but I automatically want to get a better vantage point and particularly one with cover like a gas station roof or the canopy.
Personally I would never keep everyone inside the building, and they wouldn't have all went in to begin with. Someone on the roof at a minimum, probably me, and preferably someone in another firing position. Very few people who were smart enough to survive for 3 months would engage multiple targets from a very vulnerable position (in an unarmored truck).
As long as it was only one vehicle I would definitely talk, but from a position of strength, not hiding in a truck.
Anyone who shoots to injure, let alone kill someone, without provocation is the bad guy in my book and I am a decent sniper. I have killed a lot of coyotes, rabid or not, 500 yards away or 50 with a bow and arrow, never saw it coming.


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

cowboyhermit said:


> My first reaction when I read the scenario is "GET SOMEONE ON THE ROOF"....


The only thing about that action that would bother me is the knowledge that there's a very good possibility that the roof is about to become a *defensive* position. (they'll probably figure out where you are once you take your first shot).

I'm of the belief that any defensive position is at a disadvantage. The aggressor knows where you are and can isolate you. I want *ROOM*! Mobility is life! Being static is a death-sentence. Even with a dozen armed and skilled members, a single assailant, with no mobility restrictions, is going to kill some of you. It makes no difference if the position you're defending is a roof, a gas station, or a school... The aggressor *will* kill before he is killed. Who and how many is a different tactical story, but he *will* succeed in killing some...



cowboyhermit said:


> Anyone who shoots to injure, let alone kill someone, without provocation is the bad guy in my book...


Brother!
It sound like you and I read the same books!

If I have the choice over my own life, I'd rather die a good man than live to look at a bad one in the mirror every morning.

All the best.
:usaflag:


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Some good responses guys. I obviously can't cover all the detail of the scenario in full because I'd end up writing a novel. For the purposes of the scenario the pickup truck travelling at the normal posted speed for a two lane road which should be about 50 MPH or 80 KPH. 

The scenario assumes the group was alert and heard the vehicle before it was actually visible due to road noise and engine noise and the fact that the area has no ambient noise and is pretty much silent. I'm assuming that by the time they see the truck off in the distance they have a little more than thirty seconds to just under a minute to do something. 

If the truck was travelling so fast that it would be on you in 2-4 seconds it's obvious that the truck is not stopping at the gas station as it is impossible for a truck that size loaded with people to come to a stop in 2-4 seconds. Needless to say things do happen quickly. 

As for putting a guy on the roof - if your vehicle has a ladder then that would be an option. However, in this scenario the group heard the truck before it was actually visible so there is no real advantage in terms of seeing the truck sooner. The gas station is the only building in the area and the road runs in a straight line in both direction giving a very long sight line into the distance. Anyone on the roof unless they were prone at the rear of the roof would be highly visible. 

As for being the man on the roof - you had better have huge trust in your three friends not to take off in the truck or do something else that leaves you hanging. 

As usual someone posts that they would have done recon on foot. At what point would you use the truck? Let's say you did do a week's worth of recon on foot and saw nothing each day. You had walked as far as possible and now walking is becoming impractical. Your dwindling supplies are now gone. The rest of the group is complaining of hunger. Do you then take the truck? If the answer is yes then you will come across another vehicle. 

If the answer is no does everyone in your group just starve?

Also interesting to note that the people pointing guns is now at about 70%. Keep voting on the poll and posting up responses. This is good stuff.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Thanks for some more clarification. Traveling at 50 MPH and we have at least 30 seconds means the truck is well over a half mile (or about a kilometer) away... with "to just under a minute" means at least a mile (or almost 2 kilometers) away. Definitely enough time to do something but definitely not close enough to know how many or anything about the people in it unless you've been glassing them already (binoculars, scope, etc.).

In the 30 second scenario, enough time to do stuff on this side of the road wihtout being seen, but crossing it would probably result in you being spotted. I still stand by my original "cover and aim" vote.


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

Canadian said:


> Some good responses guys. I obviously can't cover all the detail of the scenario in full because I'd end up writing a novel.


This is another of those "opinion" thingys... You know, 'opinions are like....', well you get the idea. Here's *my* opinion.

Hypotheticals, such as this very one, are a great mental exercise for a number of reasons. While no hypothetical can completely paint a picture of real-life, I believe we miss the greatest benefit of such a hypothetical if we try to make it do so.

I think the greatest product of any hypothetical situation is the many permutations inspired by the unquantifiable realities of each individual engaged in the hypothetical. For example, your scenario was created with a certain landscape, culture, and general demographic in mind. Yet, to someone outside your area, those things are variables that will invariably (no pun intended) be filled-in by the minds of those engaging. This is a *good* thing, not something that should *ever* become a point of contention. It gives each participant a base-line starting point upon which to work out their own philosophies and actions. It allows us to compare notes, and even learn a little more about what we really would be faced with in some similar scenario, and how our own scenarios would, by necessity, differ. Case in point; regardless of which vehicle you're in, simply accept the fact that whether or not you know it, you're going to be in someone's cross-hairs, and they're terrified of you! That knowledge alone will probably shape the way we all initiate (or refuse to initiate) contact should a real-life predicament occur.

I applaud the scenario!
Don't worry about eliminating or even justifying variables. Let it permutate.



Canadian said:


> As usual someone posts that they would have done recon on foot. At what point would you use the truck? Let's say you did do a week's worth of recon on foot and saw nothing each day. You had walked as far as possible and now walking is becoming impractical.


I believe it was I.

Our vehicle would be used to transport the recon team to the last safe position reconnoitered. Then it would be concealed while foot reconnaissance was completed in the new, expanded area.

Sure, it's possible to force-march 20 miles, but I don't want potentially dangerous recon being done by a bunch of old farts like myself draggin' ass... on foot - 3 mile maximum radius around the concealed vehicle in New Hampshire terrain. Then drive home and recover. (Anyone who's ever bush-whacked through a New Hampshire forest knows that 5 miles is a damned good trek in most places. Beyond that, plan on spending the night and starting again in the morning.)



Canadian said:


> Your dwindling supplies are now gone. The rest of the group is complaining of hunger.


Again, we permutate...

In the case of a complete system collapse (just playing the hypothetical), it's safe to assume that at this point, we've reached the time when the shelves are now bare. If we haven't achieved self-sustainability by now, we're dead.

Realistically, the stores only have about 3 days of food on premises, and there's only enough fish and game in New Hampshire to sustain a few thousand people for a few months. Without re-establishing agriculture of some sort (either as independent groups, or as a "collective"), you're better off getting killed by the guys in the truck. Death by gunshot is usually considered to be a far less uncomfortable death than starvation.

All the best.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Thanks for the reply Culex. It's good to see you are putting a lot of thought into this theoretical scenario. I like these "what if" scenarios because it showcases human behaviour. This is the biggest unknown factor for me so I like to find out how people will think and react in different scenarios. 

Your input is very helpful. Unlike people saying "it would never happen to me" which is really a form of not participating in the exercise. It would be more efficient on their part not to reply at all if they don't want to participate. 

The people who dodge the question always say they would do recon etc. but never actually say what they would do when making contact with an approaching vehicle. This says to me they have no clue how to approach the situation. That's why they have no answer. Or that they intend to hide until they starve to death.

The funny thing about disasters is that you don't get to pick your disaster, when it happens, how it happens, or the circumstances surrounding it. If you can pick the perfect scenario you can't learn anything from it. Will your plans go perfectly? Probably not.

That's why the scenario has to force a decision of some kind to be interesting. Preparing is looking for "what if" situations. If your response to a question is to avoid answering the question then you will never learn anything.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in this thread so far. Cheers!


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

Just to clarify, I voted for the take cover and aim because the more appropriate response was not there, I would not aim but have my rifle ready.
As for being on the roof, have you ever been on a gas station roof? I have never been on one personally that would not have a place to take cover and fire. Most commercial buildings have roofs that are flat with a short wall around the outside to give concealment at the very least. People don't look up on roofs, trust me, I have tried to get people's attention and they look just like a deer from a stand trying to figure out where I am. The canopies are usually made from a lot of steel and make excellent hiding places and cover, have you ever seen the top of one?
Very few buildings need a ladder to access, I always have some climbing rope in my vehicle and can scale 50 feet in a matter of minutes but that is rarely necessary. The majority of buildings can quickly be climbed by someone in good physical condition with very little risk. Getting down is much easier, started jumping off buildings as a kid and haven't got hurt yet, just got to know all the tricks. But realistically for most people, a rope has a million uses.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Outpost said:


> Our vehicle would be used to transport the recon team to the last safe position reconnoitered. Then it would be concealed while foot reconnaissance was completed in the new, expanded area.


Thanks for the reply. I agree that not having all the details is a good thing.

I'm also assuming that people would be equipped with whatever gear is normally on them.

Also where not stated I'd assume that conditions are normal for their local area.

*Okay, while your vehicle is being used to transport the recon team to the last safe position you are driving to the gas station (the last safe point - also the only cover or concealment in the area) and you park at the station and see the black truck down the road from you and you have 60 seconds to react. *

I look forward to knowing how you would deal with the approaching vehicle.


----------



## Startingout-Blair (Aug 28, 2012)

The real problem I see here is that everyone who responds has plenty of time to think about how their going to respond. In real life, you don't have that down-time to figure things out. You have to quickly learn to react. Furthermore, your adrenaline will be pumping hard which will also slow your thinking and response time. I think it's great to play out these scenarios, but real life would be much different. My point being, many of us should physically train as groups to deal with situations, especially surprises. Military training would always throw an unknown variable at you to see how you react. This is a good thread for thinking though.


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

Canadian said:


> *Okay, while your vehicle is being used to transport the recon team to the last safe position you are driving to the gas station (the last safe point - also the only cover or concealment in the area) and you park at the station and see the black truck down the road from you and you have 60 seconds to react. *
> 
> I look forward to knowing how you would deal with the approaching vehicle.


Actually, that particular scenario is a *LOT* easier! What you're talking about boils down to an unavoidable chance encounter. They see us, and we see them, they see us seeing them, and we see them see us seeing them..... *We all see each other....*

I'm going to assume that your intention is that these people are strangers and we've never before made contact. (after all, that's the only viable reason to engage in reconnaissance; to locate other similar groups).

In truth, if everybody sees everybody, that is a far less volatile situation than only 1 person appearing. In such a case, the intentions of each group will become immediately evident. If everybody is a good-guy, *nobody is pointing guns at anybody!* My guys might be on the opposite side of the truck, and they might be nervous, but nobody's making any aggressive move.

Just for giggles, let me repeat that; *nobody's making any aggressive move. *

Since I'm the most cantankerous, slowest, out-of-shape, expendable person in the group, I sling my long-arm down, and raise my palms towards the approaching vehicle, which (if they're good-guys) are slowing WAAAAAAAY down on their approach. I walk away from my own vehicle and group in the direction of the approaching truck. The truck will stop some distance away and 1 person will get out. Still *nobody is pointing guns at anyone!* My guys and the guys in the truck may be carrying weapons at port-arms, but I and the other individual will maintain empty hands as we walk toward each other and make initial contact. Our first words to each other *will not be* anything resembling "Who the hell are you?". More likely, "How the hell are ya'?".

Everyone is at a disadvantage, but the M.A.D. principle works (Mutually Assured Destruction). Even a bad-guy is going to think twice and wonder how many he's going to lose should the encounter degrade.

This sort of reaction and plan may seem a bit of a fantasy for some who read this (and yes, I had a little fun with it at the beginning) but the truth is that this *is the protocol* for New Hampshire hunters approaching each other. This *is * the protocol for New Hampshire woodsmen (not sandal-clad day-hikers, mind-you) when approaching each others camp. "Port-Arms" means "I'm a tad nervous, but I want to be friends". Weapons slung, or at the side and down means "I'm *trusting you* not to hurt me". An aimed weapon means "*I'm in control of you, a$$ [email protected]*", and it's *not* the message that should be sent when nervous people are trying to make new friends.

Now, here's where I'm going to come off as a real jerk, but I'll ask all who read this to try to see things under the light of *my* culture.

This may seem like a terribly contrived fantasy-encounter, but I'm not new at this. The woods of New Hampshire are not foreign to me and neither are the other people who habit such areas. Nor am I the only person within a few miles to ponder such things, and have been doing so long before this forum.

I will submit that if you (not specifically you "Canadian", but the reader in general) have failed to get-to-know your neighbors, and get to know some of the folks that you may actually "bump into" in your surrounding areas, if you don't know who you'll be with, if you haven't already done at least a little "rehearsal" on your tactics, then you've been negligent and you *should* have done that before you bought your first bag of instant potatoes.

God Bless.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

In a potentually hostill enviornment such as serving a summons on a known felon who had a history of attacking officers, we never went alone.

Somtimes a fellow officer would even cover the other officer with a rifle , unbeknown to the felon being served.

You should always go in pairs when in a hostil enviornment if at all possable.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

Canadian said:


> You can change variables in the scenario but when it comes down to it at some point in a disaster you will probably end up driving down a road and having another vehicle approach you.
> 
> If you could make your own scenario with an approaching vehicle what would you do?
> 
> ...


Canadian, I'm not speculating that in some sort of collapse/PAW/?? scenario that anyone wouldn't be FORCED to deal with an unexpected vehicle arriving. What I'm taking issue with is that the entire scenario is predicated on a SERIES of tactical errors, any one of which could be fatal and here's a string of them. Why not just wear a giant blaze orange traffic control pylon as a hat and a plywood "gank me" sandwich board sign as body armor?

So it's not about presenting a "different" scenario at all, it's about NEVER getting into that exact scenario in the first place.

For example:

Running low on food is going to happen, but in this scenario that should be something thought about from day 1, not an after-thought of okay it never got better now it's getting tough.

Why go noisy and fast into an area you dont know anything about? roads are for people who like to get ambushed.

Unless you have some kind of dire emergency (running low on food does not count) -- someone is knee deep into the hurt locker because they've got a medical or trauma issue and they need it fixed, RTFN... OKAY!!!! Now you've got a scenario that might make it more understandable to take GREATER RISK.

Do NOT put everyone into the same vehicle if at all possible

Do as much as you can to limit the distance and the unknown terrain & neighbors as you go there. This means while times are still "okay" you're out there poking around all sneaky like on quiet patrols. Maybe leaving a message, maybe knocking on doors carrying a white flag if you know the neighbors or not...

Just because it's winter, doesn't mean you cant fish, hunt and garden, people do this all the time, even in winter. If it's spring and you've only spent 1 winter in the BOL, that means you've either taken in a LOT more people than originally anticipated or you did NOT spend that winter as best as you could have sustaining food (which was the original driving reason to leave the BOL if I remember) If you have clean water, and decent hunting (which are part of the scenario), what exactly are you missing from food preps that you cant provide for yourself?

Sorry, I can completely imagine millions of people being in this situation, but that's only because they didn't follow through with a self-sustainable plan as soon as they activated their BOL. That failure to plan created the scenario, along with several potentially deadly mistakes and then all of a sudden... some unknown vehicle.

My point... do everything you can in the first place to NEVER be in that situation. If you're all looking around at each other inside the building, that's a good indication that it could have been planned better. Now you've got a handful of people in a "fight or flight" critical decision tree. And the response of ANY one of them is going to "potentially" push the incoming vehicle into a hostile posture instead of a possible friendly posture.

right?


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

BillM said:


> Somtimes a fellow officer would even cover the other officer with a rifle , unbeknown to the felon being served.


It's the "unbeknown to the felon" part that let's things like that work out peacefully.

It may be proper, accepted, and even necessary in a Law Enforcement scenario, but if a* good-guy* knows you're aiming at him, his own psychology is going to *compel* him to get out of the line of fire, and since he knows *HE'S* a good-guy, he's going to *KNOW* that you have *no justifiable reason* to threaten his life. That's going to make him think *you're the bad-guy*, and frankly, not without some justification.

In a "collapse" scenario, there is no government, no authority, no cops. We're all equal, or one of us dies.

Peace.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

@ Dakine - That was a very long winded way of avoiding giving an answer to the question. 

I understand that you would do everything in your power to avoid that situation - but just because you try to avoid a situation does not mean that you will succeed in avoiding it. 

I can see that you feel you don't need a back up plan or protocol because you believe that you will be able to do everything perfectly and that the disaster will unfold exactly as you prepared for it. 

Because nothing has ever gone wrong in your life. Right?

Because if a disaster happened for the rest of your life until you died you would never be approached by a vehicle of any kind?

It's a simple question:

How do you deal with an approaching vehicle?

It is a theoretical scenario. I get the feeling some people are afraid to answer... Because there is no right or wrong answer to this question.

@ Outpost - Thanks for answering the question. I really like your input. 

I'd like it if people could meet the scenario half way. It isn't written perfectly but I'm not going to pour over it like a lawyer for days and polish it. C'mon guys. It's a forum post! It isn't a legal document. 

I think most people can get where I'm going with the poll and say "okay there's some holes in this but I understand where you're coming from... Here is what I would do in that theoretical situation."

Those perfect people who have never made a "tactical error" in their entire life can feel free to ignore this thread.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

Canadian said:


> @ Dakine - That was a very long winded way of avoiding giving an answer to the question.
> 
> I understand that you would do everything in your power to avoid that situation - but just because you try to avoid a situation does not mean that you will succeed in avoiding it.
> 
> ...


No.  we're still not communicating.

You want an answer to a scenario, that I propose you should never be in. I acknowledge that you might find yourself in that situation anyway!!! life sucks, get past it. kind of thing.

Avoiding the scenario you originally presented is what will keep you alive, and if you've fallen into that situation then the truth is it's not really without potential to have prevented it. You dont just accidentally get there, as myself and others have tried to show you.

SINCE you seem so focused on WHAT DO YOU DO about this truck, and WILL NOT acknowledge that you put yourself into that END PART of the situation in the first place which could have been avoided... how about this???

Me and my 3 guys inside the building should first take cover. 
-we do not know they know about us.

(they may or may not be locals, or even if transient may not recognize that our vehicle is new, and we do not know WHY they are on the road right now... maybe they are running from someone else??? Hey, maybe that someone else is the new bigger problem!)

Me and my 3 guys inside the building will not shoot at anyone until we feel our life is in jeopardy. 
-I have clearly illustrated that me and my 3 guys intentionally put ourselves at risk by making very obvious mistakes.

do I get to choose my "3 people"????? because if it's my ex-gf and her 2 bff's I'd probably rather starve to death burning up calories making nice with everyone... if it's a couple folks who actually know how to tie their own boots and act under fire, that's a different situation entirely, now there's no limit to what we might do (except we're not going to fall into the TRAP of your scenario in the first place, which is the point you continue to miss)  But you never specified that.

So what do you want?

we're inside the building and we cut them to shreds because letting the vehicle stop and people dismount means they control the ground and we're dead. wow that sucked.

or we could let them stop and HOPE they are somewhat friendly and then we at least part company knowing there's other fair people out there (best case scenario) or maybe it's a settlement that we can let them give us a lease on passing through that territory that they "own" and we'll pay them off with... silver dimes, a 5 gal jerry can of gas, ????

You keep wanting to talk about what to do about this truck that shows up... how about putting yourself into proactive situations where the truck doesnt show up, and if and when it does, you're more likely inclined to know how they act shows you if they are hostile or not.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

OK, I still think that because the folks in the truck are an unknown entity, that my guys and I should take cover, if the truck people pull up and start shredding MY truck and LOOK the part of MZBs, then I will maintain cover and try to be undetected, if I/we get found and they start shooting, then we have the advantage because WE are the unknown factor, and WE are already under cover. IF they are a family looking group, or act like they wouldn't shoot you just as soon as look at you, again, I would hail them from cover. Letting them know I am there and that I am not a threat. Having made the initial contact and I am still alive, I would come out and see what is up, the other three in my group maintaining cover untill we feel comfortable that we aren't gonna be the truck peoples dinner.:eyebulge:

Because this is the first contact any of our group has had with anyone since things went bad, I WILL be VERY CAUTIOUS, with this first contact. Maintaining control of the initial contact would, IMO, be vital.


----------



## dirtgrrl (Jun 5, 2011)

Another excellent post, Outpost.

In my line of work, we encounter armed strangers or others known but not _friends_ fairly often. "We" being government -ologists of various types, and the strangers being ranchers, hunters, and others who quite frankly, are out there because they just wanna be alone. We are never in uniform, sometimes wearing clothing that identifies us (like an imprinted T-shirt), and always driving unmarked trucks with government plates. We are prohibited from carrying firearms on duty, but it is not unknown for that little rule to be quietly ignored. Some of the areas we work in are very remote and help could be hours away, so we travel self contained and ready for a lot of whatever crap could happen out there. We have contingency plans for many, many scenarios, including encounters with hostile public, SAR, or other emergency situations.

Since we are a rather non-threatening group of posy-sniffers and tree-huggers comprised mostly of females, we get very little hostility from anyone. (Hey, cowboys LOVE talking to women in pickup trucks!) But, our agency LEOs get the full ration, threats, hostility, etc. female or not, from these very same people. You name it, they've had it thrown at them. (It's the reason we do not wear the uniform in the field. We do not want to be mistaken for the law.) We are not perceived to be a threat, whereas the LEOs definitely are.

Our SOP for encountering the public is to smile, wave, keep hands in sight. If they are stopped, pull over, roll down the window and engage in conversation. "Hi. How are ya? Are you having a nice trip? See anything interesting out there?" etc. If the situation warrants, ask if they need help in any way. If they seem disinterested in conversation, then smile, tell them to have a nice day, and get on with your work. You may think that being female, we encounter many people who may want to take advantage of us, but that's not the case. In many years, we have had only one encounter where a fella was up to no good. (It ended badly for him.) We are prepared and situationally aware for our back country work. Going home at the end of the project is our priority.

So I will play this game from my experience and point of view. I may be the only female playing, so take it for what it is.

My small group back at the house would probably be composed of women and children, with maybe a few men, depending on certain events. I would be the oldest of this group, and the leader. (I have been leading people for quite some time now, and if you think I would give up that position simply because I am female, ya gotta 'nother think coming. The first man who orders me to make him a samwich will be very, very sorry.) Three months post SHTF, we hear nothing from the outside, food is running low, and we really want to know if we are indeed the only ones left. We are tired of being alone. We don't WANT to be alone.

We've been hunting, gathering, and are beginning to farm, keeping our eyes open and trying to be as discreet as possible. Firearms are loud, but no one has come to check out the noise. Our stealthy recon trips have been uneventful and have found no sign of recent human presence. I choose three of the best hunters, we arm ourselves and take the vehicle out past the log barriers to scout more of the local area. The group left at the house are prepared and have instructions for what to do in case we don't return, or if, god forbid, hostiles follow our back trail. We are individually prepared for several days in the field. If we have to abandon the vehicle or split up we have pre-arranged meeting places, signals, and code words. These things are known to the group back at the house as well. Under no circumstances will we return to the house without being absolutely certain we are not being followed. The four of us have hunted and worked together before. We know our roles and abilities. We know this area and the roads very well.

Once we reach the point beyond our previous recons, we turn towards town and notice that this part of the road has also not been traveled on in quite some time. We take particular care to camouflage our exit point. We travel slowly and quietly along that road, and because we cannot obliterate our tracks well on the pavement, we deliberately turn off on to almost every side road, travel a bit, then back out. We do this slowly, quietly, until we come to the gas station.

As the station comes into view, we pull over and stay in the vehicle to watch it for a while. It is obviously abandoned and there is no movement. Our hearts are pounding as we quietly pull in behind the station but position the vehicle so that we can pull right out and go if needed. We examine the abandoned vehicles and discover the tanks have holes and the gasoline either taken or evaporated. There is little gasoline odor left so this has not happened in the recent past. There are also indications that blood has been spilled and a body of some type drug away, but whether human or animal is uncertain. The hair is standing up on our necks as we begin to explore the interior. We four move inside, but one of the hunters stays hidden near the window to keep an eye on the road behind and ahead. Just as we realize that the station has been completely looted, we hear the unmistakable sound of a large truck engine, not far off. Our sentry exclaims, "A truck! With people in the back! Coming from town!" There is panic in her voice as her eyes remain fixed on the truck which is still a ways down the road, but moving fast. Towards us.

I touch her arm and remind her that this is what we were looking for, and that we are prepared. The sentry and one of the other hunters remain hidden inside with rifles at ready, while the other hunter and I walk outside toward the road. Our rifles are at our sides, pointed down. My handgun is hidden under my sweatshirt. Except for the rifles, we look like any grandmother and grandson out for a walk. The boy stations himself behind the engine compartment of an abandoned truck, protected but still visible, while I slowly raise my hand and smile at the approaching truck.


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

Dirtgrrl, Thank you for your kind words.



dirtgrrl said:


> ...
> Since we are a rather non-threatening group of posy-sniffers and tree-huggers comprised mostly of females, we get very little hostility from anyone. (Hey, cowboys LOVE talking to women in pickup trucks!)


Hey! Who doesn't? 



dirtgrrl said:


> But, our agency LEOs get the full ration, threats, hostility, etc. female or not, from these very same people. You name it, they've had it thrown at them. (It's the reason we do not wear the uniform in the field. We do not want to be mistaken for the law.) We are not perceived to be a threat, whereas the LEOs definitely are.


In our present social condition, government is simply mistrusted. Unfortunately, some people have a difficult time differentiating between the "problem people" (not going into great detail on that one, but I'm pretty sure everybody knows to whom I refer...) and working stiffs like the rest of us who simply get their paycheck from a government account. I must admit that I've met town/city garbage-collectors who actually had the unfortunate attitude of "ruling-class mentality". They're as much a part of the problem as the escalatory bullies who sometimes find their way behind a badge, or worse, into the legislature.



dirtgrrl said:


> Our SOP for encountering the public is to smile, wave, keep hands in sight. If they are stopped, pull over, roll down the window and engage in conversation. "Hi. How are ya? ...


Whether one is unarmed and alone, or dripping with weapons, it's one's demeanor that will communicate their intent to the other party.

It's easy to fantasize "controlling the situation". What's difficult is diffusing it before the fuse is even lit. Whether we're in a post-apocalyptic environment (one I frankly don't see as likely), or simply in our day-to-day lives, I believe that we *must* take into consideration what the "other-guy" (or gal)  is perceiving us to be.

Believe me when I tell you that if it's me, and *my* guys that are approaching you in that nasty-looking pickup truck, you're about to make new friends.

All the best to you and yours.
Be well and stay safe (and yep... I wish the same even for your uniformed L.E.O.-types.... Not *all* of us out here will throw crap at 'em).

-Regards.
:usaflag:


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

dirtgrrl said:


> ....My small group back at the house would probably be composed of women and children, with maybe a few men, depending on certain events. I would be the oldest of this group, and the leader. (I have been leading people for quite some time now, and if you think I would give up that position simply because I am female, ya gotta 'nother think coming. The first man who orders me to make him a samwich will be very, very sorry.) Three months post SHTF, we hear nothing from the outside, food is running low, and we really want to know if we are indeed the only ones left. We are tired of being alone. We don't WANT to be alone.
> 
> We've been hunting, gathering, and are beginning to farm, keeping our eyes open and trying to be as discreet as possible. Firearms are loud, but no one has come to check out the noise. Our stealthy recon trips have been uneventful and have found no sign of recent human presence. I choose three of the best hunters, we arm ourselves and take the vehicle out past the log barriers to scout more of the local area. The group left at the house are prepared and have instructions for what to do in case we don't return, or if, god forbid, hostiles follow our back trail. We are individually prepared for several days in the field. If we have to abandon the vehicle or split up we have pre-arranged meeting places, signals, and code words. These things are known to the group back at the house as well. Under no circumstances will we return to the house without being absolutely certain we are not being followed. The four of us have hunted and worked together before. We know our roles and abilities. We know this area and the roads very well.
> 
> ...


Ever try your hand at writing a PAW fiction story? Your little description above sounds like a good start to me.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Didn't read the scenario before I voted. If there were a bed full of guys I would tactically remove myself and group, at least to a better spot to engage them.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Dakine said:


> So what do you want?


I wanted to have a discussion with the folks on this forum about a theoretical situation.

You stated that the poll was nothing but the "worst choices ever" and other people on the forum reminded you that we're here for friendly discussion.

I then invited you to invent your own scenario so you could share what you would do in a similar situation. You then avoid the question and post up another insulting reply.

I then ignore the original scenario and having you pose your own scenario and directly ask you what you would do if there was an approaching vehicle.

Again you ignore the question and don't bother to contribute in a constructive manner in the thread.

What do I want? At this point I want you to stop trolling so everyone else who is participating can enjoy the thread. You are clearly attempting to de-rail the discussion.

@ Everyone Else - Thanks for the answers. Good stuff - I'm very much enjoying your participation. Cheers!


----------



## dirtgrrl (Jun 5, 2011)

Thanks, Outpost, but I think you nailed it ... don't let the situation escalate in the first place. 

Thank you, too, Culex. As a matter of fact, I have one in the works, but I don't get a lot of time to write. It's fairly complex, so it'll be a while.

When I get a little more time to post, I'll outline three different scenarios I see arising from this First Contact situation.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

dirtgrrl said:


> ...
> 
> Thank you, too, Culex. As a matter of fact, I have one in the works, but I don't get a lot of time to write. It's fairly complex, so it'll be a while.
> 
> When I get a little more time to post, I'll outline three different scenarios I see arising from this First Contact situation.


Good to hear. I, and I'm sure others, look forward to reading it when you finish.

This topic is kind of interesting to me... I ran into a "what if" situation on a different forum a few years back and the basis of that simple what if scenario led to my "Big Box" series of stories. Unless Canadian objects I might work this scenario up into another short story.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

@dirtgrrl - I'd really enjoy reading your scenarios. I look forward to it. 

@Culex - I'd enjoy reading a survival based short story. I have no objections to you using it to write a story. How can I find your "Big Box" stories?


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Canadian said:


> @dirtgrrl - I'd really enjoy reading your scenarios. I look forward to it.
> 
> @Culex - I'd enjoy reading a survival based short story. I have no objections to you using it to write a story. How can I find your "Big Box" stories?


Amazon Kindle, my site (www.culexpipiens.com) and of course they're in the fiction forum here too.

http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f55/big-box-9230/
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f55/big-box-part-2-call-me-sam-9744/
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f55/big-box-part-3-time-church-9993/
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f55/big-box-part-4-they-got-schooled-10054/
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f55/big-box-part-5-turkey-worms-10150/
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f55/big-box-part-6-hunters-10300/
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f55/big-box-part-7-friendly-neighbors-11580/
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f55/big-box-part-8-run-kris-run-11599/


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Thanks for the links.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

And a thanks to you for the idea... in looking over a story I've been stuck for months on I just figured out this scenario would be a perfect transition point to move the story forward!


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

Canadian said:


> I wanted to have a discussion with the folks on this forum about a theoretical situation.


As pointed out, by others, a very bad situation. Created by yourself actually to be there in the first place.



Canadian said:


> You stated that the poll was nothing but the "worst choices ever" and other people on the forum reminded you that we're here for friendly discussion.


I notice that I wasn't the 1st, the 2nd or even the 3rd to point out the scenario was flawed. You might imagine that would be an opportunity to take pause; re-evaluate the scenario and realize that it's fundamentally flawed.

I don't know how or why you came up with this idea, but being deeply committed to one so obviously dangerous is remarkable at least... I think you're too insulted about how poorly you framed the scenario to actually back up and recognize it's something nobody should ever be in.



Canadian said:


> I then invited you to invent your own scenario so you could share what you would do in a similar situation. You then avoid the question and post up another insulting reply.


I don't need to create alternate scenarios to spam the forum and amuse you. I haven't seen any replies that said "Yeah, this is exactly what I'd do" based on your posit, but I will go double check just to be sure... 



Canadian said:


> I then ignore the original scenario and having you pose your own scenario and directly ask you what you would do if there was an approaching vehicle.


which I answered...



Canadian said:


> Again you ignore the question and don't bother to contribute in a constructive manner in the thread.


just because you don't like the answer you got doesn't mean it wasn't the answer that was appropriate to the question.

It's not anyone elses job to be "constructive" to accommodate your point of view. If you don't understand it, you have options...



Canadian said:


> What do I want? At this point I want you to stop trolling so everyone else who is participating can enjoy the thread. You are clearly attempting to de-rail the discussion.


Uhhh, just because you don't like the opinions of others who don't fall into fantasy worlds where they make a string of fatal mistakes doesn't mean someone is "trolling". Maybe by your definition everyone who has disagreed is "de-railing" but I suspect they'd be trying to "educate" not only you but anyone else who might put themselves in jeopardy by ever getting into that end of the scenario.

Obviously there were ways to fix and avoid that end situation throughout the course of events that put your hypothetical people there, but you refuse to listen and continue to push the point that it's better to be at risk from having made many mistakes than to have learned from a question how bad the entire scenario really was.

If you think these are rational choices that someone would make during some kind of local/regional collapse... best of luck to you... you seem to be unwilling to listen to others that it never had to happen in the first place. That's unfortunate and I hope nobody is ever put in danger by these kind of thought processes in real life.


----------



## cnsper (Sep 20, 2012)

You can do everything right according to your mind and yet still be placed in a situation where you life is in potential danger.

Our soldiers are trained to avoid traps and yet they are continually attacked or IEDs are set off. No matter what you think is the perfect setup to prevent a scenario like this, life has a habit of doing what ever the hell it wants to.

The Afghans were taking down Soviet helicopters with a simple cable strung across valleys.

You have to be perfect every time, the bad guys only need once.

No matter what you do or think, Murphy has other plans. Hell you could have scouted the area for 3 months and seen no movement and the day you decide to drive over there and collect whatever you can someone comes from another town further away.

Maybe the scenario is not to your liking but then neither is a combat situation. 

Pilots do constant equipment and weather checks yet they still crash. Maybe their scenario was all wrong?

You say that it is a scenario that one should never be in? Our soldiers should never be in an ambush either.

However you got there (stupidity((in your opinion)) or Murphy), you still have a truckload of people coming at you, what do you do?

Now for the base location,...

I can tell you that there will be many people prowling the backroads too and with a tree or other obstacle across the road they will know that someone is back there. If you are going to block a road you need to make it look as it is not man made. A tree that is uprooted looks a lot better than one that was cut down.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

cnsper said:


> You can do everything right according to your mind and yet still be placed in a situation where you life is in potential danger.
> 
> Our soldiers are trained to avoid traps and yet they are continually attacked or IEDs are set off. No matter what you think is the perfect setup to prevent a scenario like this, life has a habit of doing what ever the hell it wants to.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, and in the case of our troops they are forced into situations that dictate they proceed into bad situations with limited options.

It was the way this scenario was framed that had so many other possible ways to be a learning alternative rather than what Canadian wants which is jump to the end and deal with "now you're in the gas station!" why die over something that you never should have been part of, and was your choice NOT to be there?

I gave him an answer to the scenario but he discarded it. I'm sure he feels I'm hostile and dismissive and doesn't want to acknowledge it... I accept I can't change his mind; at this point it's about hoping nobody finds themselves there and instead, trying to point out what and why they could have done differently that would avoid ever putting themselves at risk like that.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

When we conduct a TTX's in the Army there are always people who "fight the scenario" and just argue why the scenarios is unrealstic etc etc.

Even if true (and its a big if) none of tjhose things matter because scenarios exist to discuss a specific situation and reaction modes.
Not how you got there.

And those who feel that no one in their group will make errors in SHTF is up for a rude awakening.

So, yes, the scenario is just fine... we shouldn't argue the scenario but instead discuss the possible responses.
That is what the OP asked and that is what we owe him/her


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

BlueZ said:


> When we conduct a TTX's in the Army there are always people who "fight the scenario" and just argue why the scenarios is unrealstic etc etc.
> 
> Even if true (and its a big if) none of tjhose things matter because scenarios exist to discuss a specific situation and reaction modes.
> Not how you got there.
> ...


I see your point, and I have thought about this since this all began. Like I've said repeatedly, it's not about "being in the gas station" it's about WHY you're in the gas station, that's what my answers have been about.

I gave him an honest answer and he chose to ignore that.

I said take cover... we dont know that they (the approaching truck) even knows about us. And if they do stop, my (our) response is going to be greatly influenced if not dictated by what they do.

Also like I said, this becomes a weakest link situation... Since we're all in the gas station looking at each other and blinking eyes wondering WTF do we do next, and while even trained soldiers can fail under fire, at least they can fall back to the level of their training... random Joe/Jane nobody in an emotional roller coaster ride (the collapse) and now an immediate in your face bad place to be + a fight or flight panic situation of surprise strangers

is it possible to win this? unless everything goes extremely well, everyone acts coolly and responsibly, and nobody gets itchy and nobody is pointing guns at people, and nobody is trying to take advantage of the situation at the expense of others... that's a lot to ask in the middle of a society collapse isnt it? that is the scenario that was presented.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Dakine - You're made your point abundantly clear. It is obvious that you don't want to participate. So please do not participate. All you are doing is disrupting the thread. At this point it is blatant trolling. Let the people who are enjoying this thread continue to do so without interruption.


----------



## Tribal Warlord Thug (Jan 27, 2009)

dont pay any attention to the damn troll canadian.......you and i are longtimers on this forum and have surely seen our fair share of those 'who are superior in knowledge' than the rest of us poor ol' unlearned preppers........it seems to be that in the last 5-6 months this forum has gotten an assload of liberal-lefty-loonie-whatever ya wanna call 'em tryin' to shove their superior knowledge of all things down our throats................dakine, why dont ya just SHUT YER PHUQIN' MOUTH and answer the question that was put forth instead of twisting it up to be something that YOU would never find yerself in......we really dont care to be 'schooled' by you, ...........sorry canadian.....i just dont have the tolerance for idiots that ya'llzz have...........


----------



## woodymedic (Aug 7, 2012)

FatTire said:


> Well, I think the best lesson learned from this sort of thought exercise is to avoid these kinds of scenarios.
> 
> From a BOL, I would think observing the road out about 5 miles during the day, and scout out maybe ten miles once a week at night would be a good starting point. Gathering information while avoiding confrontation would be the mindset.


This is a good concept. If you haven't already, you should take a look at the Army Field Manual FM 7-92, specifically chapter 4 covering different types of recon operations. Obviously not everything will apply since you'd not be likely to have a platoon-sized element to do active recon. But the prinicipals are sound.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

All right. It feels good to be back on track!


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

I agree with folks that have said not to point your guns at other folks. I voted "hide and aim guns" but assumed I had enough time to hide good enough that they wouldnt know that any guns were pointed at them. I prefer to be over prepared and if it turns out that the truck is filled by the local PTA then they will just think I was alone when confronting them. Little did they know they were all painted from a distance. I would never want to escalate the situation.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

Canadian said:


> Dakine - You're made your point abundantly clear. It is obvious that you don't want to participate. So please do not participate. All you are doing is disrupting the thread. At this point it is blatant trolling. Let the people who are enjoying this thread continue to do so without interruption.


Canadian, I think you've misunderstood my posts from the beginning. Perhaps I should have been more careful to accommodate your feelings?

I do think it's unfortunate we couldn't find something to agree on. You seem to agree if it's not me saying it, so it seems I've polarized your opinion, thats unfortunate because it means you wouldn't be willing to listen.

Good luck!


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Dakine said:


> Canadian, I think you've misunderstood my posts from the beginning. Perhaps I should have been more careful to accommodate your feelings?
> 
> I do think it's unfortunate we couldn't find something to agree on. You seem to agree if it's not me saying it, so it seems I've polarized your opinion, thats unfortunate because it means you wouldn't be willing to listen.
> 
> Good luck!


You've been given ample warning.

Your trolling activity has been reported to the moderators.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Hmm.. Somehow the post I had written didn't appear, so I am going to re type it...

Ok, Canadian - First off, great post! If there was a Top 25 for 2012, I would nominate it, cause it definitely makes you think some...

Now, I understand what you were trying to get across, and I also know everyone has their own SOP... Such as, not using the truck on recon - using a walking patrol a mile around the BOL prior to just getting in the truck and going... 

So I took this as an opportunity to think about it as "Oh shit, we just got caught cause we screwed up our SOP". The first question that hit me under this scenario is - just how fast that truck was coming and the amount of distance away it was - so that I could then figure out how to reply... Seeing that it was asked and answered - thank you both. 

So I voted hide and aim... but here is what I would really do.

The lookout informs us he hears engine sounds - this would cause us to start preparing - I would hope, not waiting until we actually saw this truck coming at us down the road. I order him to the abandon truck with weapon ready but not aiming, he is to glass the truck until it hits a hundred yards unless engine sound changes telling us they are stopping, the two in the store are taking cover but at the ready. I will be by our truck concealed and gun at the ready. I will try to get a coded message off to base camp if time permits - it just depends upon where I am in the store when engine sounds are announced... 

Since there is a CB at base camp and a CB in the truck, we will have already done the following before we left.:
Using 2 maps of the area, place 2 mile by 2 mile grids on them and labeled them - orange 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 red 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc... Also before we left we would have established SOP for radio usage. Call Signs, Authentication Challenges, and codes for trouble coming, heading in, etc... 

As an example of the CB comms -
Mike Kilo 1 to Echo Base 1
Echo Base 1 to Mike Kilo 1 Authenticate
Mike Kilo 1 - Mt Dew Rules
Echo Base 1 - Accept
Mike Kilo 1 - Authenticate 
Echo Base 1 - But Monster Engery Drinks Cause Heart Attacks
Mike Kilo 1 - Accept
Mike Kilo 1 - Orange 4, Frosty, Unknown, Unknown, DayQuil, Over.
Echo Base 1 - Copy Orange 4, Frosty, Unknown, Unknown, DayQuil, Over.
Mike Kilo 1 - Out.

Basically - I give location, we have potential trouble, unknown number, threat level unknown, be alert headed your way...

Of course I just made up all the darn codes off the top of my head, but I think everyone gets the drift...

Again - Great Post!


----------



## cnsper (Sep 20, 2012)

Pepto Bismol might be more appropriate this situation than DayQuil... LOL

Good post.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

cnsper said:


> Pepto Bismol might be more appropriate this situation than DayQuil... LOL
> 
> Good post.


OMG ROFLMAO... Very Nice! And thanks!


----------

