# Protocol for meeting people after shtf?



## Aliaysonfire (Dec 18, 2012)

Ok, so things are nasty- people are scared. You're walking to your bug out location- but you were smart and used pipeline easements for your route- it takes longer but you know there won't be many others on the pipelines. And then you saw them- a family that looked like yours. Everyone was packed out just like yours. How do you "pass" them? Do you engage in conversation or hide as soon as you see them? What if it's a lone person- man or woman. Old or young. The main thing is that they don't appear to be a threat and they have seen you. What is your response?


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Try some cheesy pick up lines.


----------



## Aliaysonfire (Dec 18, 2012)

And when I say "don't appear to be a threat" I don't mean they aren't armed, they just don't look starved or crazy and they didn't shoot you or your party as soon as they saw you. 
How close is too close for a stranger? Do you let them share your campfire if they ask? How do you "get to know" another person that obviously was more prepared than the average bear? What do you assume?


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Even if they are walking slower than your group let them walk in front of you.

They will trip the ambush. Also you don't have to look over your shoulder if they are in front of you. 

I'd give a friendly wave. I wouldn't engage in conversation. Just keep walking.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Packed out like my family = safer to talk to.

Single man = not safe to talk to.
Single woman = safe to talk to.

These are just rough decision based on no information. Maybe I'd be making a mistake to talk to the well equipped family. I'll never know if I passed up a good alliance by avoiding the single man. 

The more information I gather on the individuals the more my decision process changes.

At this point the best strategy to follow is to rely on stereotypes. Men are more dangerous than women. Men in families are less dangerous than single men. A family consisting of a father with 2 teenaged boys is more dangerous than a family with a mother and father and two small children.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Aliaysonfire said:


> How close is too close for a stranger? Do you let them share your campfire if they ask?


If they're asking to share a campfire with you, then you've already crossed a risk threshold - they know where you are and they can attack you in your sleep. Now it's a flip of the coin - have them share your fire and have them near so that you can keep an eye on them but still risk being attacked while you sleep or tell them to move on and thus lose sight of them and still risk being attacked while you sleep. Telling them to move on may antagonize them and all it buys you is a phantom shell of secrecy, meaning you don't see them observing you if they in fact are observing you, in other words, false confidence.

If they're already at my camp fire and I see no signs of danger, I'd prefer to have them near where I can observe them and know precisely where any threat will come from rather than have them stalking me from any direction out in the woods, with every noise in the woods possibly being them readying an attack.

As others more experienced at bushcraft will likely note, it would be better if they didn't see your campfire at all.



> How do you "get to know" another person that obviously was more prepared than the average bear? What do you assume?


I assume a stereotype because that's all I've got. Start with whatever information or gut feeling you have and then modify as you gain more information.


----------



## Aliaysonfire (Dec 18, 2012)

Thank you for the replies. From the scenario I've given I think you're right to go on stereotypes. I love to believe in the goodness of the world from day to day- but I'll be a different person when me and my son ever, ever have to make so crazy ass exodus to our bug out location. I will be pointing a gun and passing with a cautious eye because I don't want any trouble you hear me mister?! 
I don't ever want to be in the situation where I have to keep an eye on a potential risk. Oohhhhh I want everyone to see the feathers raised on me so they stay clear! I'd rather hope they know they'd have a giant nasty fight to the death on their hands than think I was an easy target.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

Appropriate rules of conduct will evolve !


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

I think this kind of scenario is horribly likely, and it's impossible to answer because I only know one side of the event, mine. 

I don't think I'd be willing to trust someone "more" because they are traveling with kids. Since the scenario presented is that they are a family I'll assume they should be acting as such. "Dad" reaching in to stop a child from grabbing the hot skillet on the fire place grill is a huge difference from "a man" keeping all of the younger/weaker "in one place"

Life is imperfect.  make good choices! hope for better times and prepare for the worst as best you can.


----------



## AdmiralD7S (Dec 6, 2012)

Aliaysonfire said:


> I will be pointing a gun and passing with a cautious eye because I don't want any trouble you hear me mister?!
> 
> ...
> 
> Oohhhhh I want everyone to see the feathers raised on me so they stay clear! I'd rather hope they know they'd have a giant nasty fight to the death on their hands than think I was an easy target.


Personally, I think that'd be a poor way to go about it. If someone "antes up" by pointing a gun at me first and without provocation, I will immediately mark them as hostile. From that point on, I will take any reasonably "safe" opportunity to draw my own weapon and ACTUALLY shoot unless I can safely withdraw.

IMO, a much better way would be to display your firearm. Displayed firearms tell me someone means business. Aimed firearms without provocation tell me I have a crazy person on my hands.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> Packed out like my family = safer to talk to.
> Single man = not safe to talk to.
> Single woman = safe to talk to.


Not me. A single woman is NOT safe, because she is most likely a trap and there will be others watching and waiting to ambush while you are talking to her. Just like in hitchhiking... a solitary woman always means there are other men nearby.



Bobbb said:


> At this point the best strategy to follow is to rely on stereotypes. Men are more dangerous than women. Men in families are less dangerous than single men. A family consisting of a father with 2 teenaged boys is more dangerous than a family with a mother and father and two small children.


I would agree with this. I believe it would generally be true.



AdmiralD7S said:


> IMO, a much better way would be to display your firearm. Displayed firearms tell me someone means business. Aimed firearms without provocation tell me I have a crazy person on my hands.


I would also be more trusting of someone displaying a firearms than someone trying to hide one. If a person of "relatively decent" appearance with a really nice AR-15 of good quality with some (not tons) nice accessories will generally tell me this person is more successful in life and worked hard to be able to afford nice guns. I would be more prone to trust them. If someone looks really "gangster" with a nice weapon I would assume they stole it


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> Packed out like my family = safer to talk to.
> Single man = not safe to talk to.
> Single woman = safe to talk to.


Not me. A single woman is NOT safe, because she is most likely a trap and there will be others watching and waiting to ambush while you are talking to her. ESPECIALLY if she is attractive. Just like in hitchhiking... a solitary, pretty woman always means there are other men nearby.



Bobbb said:


> At this point the best strategy to follow is to rely on stereotypes. Men are more dangerous than women. Men in families are less dangerous than single men. A family consisting of a father with 2 teenaged boys is more dangerous than a family with a mother and father and two small children.


I would agree with this. I believe it would generally be true.



AdmiralD7S said:


> IMO, a much better way would be to display your firearm. Displayed firearms tell me someone means business. Aimed firearms without provocation tell me I have a crazy person on my hands.


I would also be more trusting of someone displaying a firearms than someone trying to hide one. If a person of "relatively decent" appearance with a really nice AR-15 of good quality with some (not tons) nice accessories will generally tell me this person is more successful in life and worked hard to be able to afford nice guns. I would be more prone to trust them. If someone looks really "gangster" with a nice weapon I would assume they stole it


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

I have to agree about the aiming weapons at someone, police and military can get away with it because they are generally respected/feared and it is expected of them. However If someone is traveling a path and encounters someone who points their gun at them this can be a recipe for disaster, most people's response will be to defend themselves and will feel justified, even if they are not bad people. If someone has never had a gun aimed at them by a random stranger it can be hard to explain. On the other hand if a person approaches a barrier or obstacle of some kind and then is confronted with a person pointing a gun at them the response is much more likely to be to retreat/go around.
Not to rain on anyone's parade, (I like to think worst case myself), but immediately after shtf events in the past we have usually seen an outpouring of mutual assistance. There have certainly been examples of individuals and groups doing bad things but this has been a very small minority. To find examples of family attacking family to any extent it is not easy unless people are starving already.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

cowboyhermit said:


> Immediately after shtf events in the past we have usually seen an outpouring of mutual assistance. There have certainly been examples of individuals and groups doing bad things but this has been a very small minority. To find examples of family attacking family to any extent it is not easy unless people are starving already.


That about sums it up. 
The exception would be a VERY large regional or national event... and most likely only after an extended period of hardship would things get ugly. I am pretty sure the first few weeks wouldn't be so bad.


----------



## alwaysready (May 16, 2012)

Pointing a gun at someone is a good way to get killed. I'd rather completely avoid them than do that. Also understand that most familys will stick together right wrong or indifferent. And a lone woman might not be that alone.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

After SHTF and now you need to listen to what your "body" is telling you does the hair on the back of your neck stand up when you first see them, in the modern over crowded world most people shut down their natural warning system. the way you feel about people (not including sterotyping) before a word is spoken is a lot better indicator than what you think about them after they have talked. many really nasty nasty people have a nice smooth exterior. Many rough looking, sounding people have a heart of gold.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Sheesh, good thing I will be staying home. Being a single guy and everything no one would trust me and the pup!

I would take everyone on a first impression. First impression in this scenario is they are walking off the beaten path, prepared and obviously on their way to somewhere. Off to a good start! If we had to pass I’d give them a Howdy and see if they responded. If yes I would try to engage them. You never know what they might have learned. If not I would go on my way. If they were up ahead I would let them stay there but also try and let them know I was behind them, if they did not notice me already. I’d call the dog and give them a wave as they turned to look at us.

I think anyone who would be out there, prepared and off the beaten path would garner a certain amount of trust from the get go. The riff raff would be off looting and pillaging not on their way to somewhere. At some time we will have to learn to trust someone again, why not now?

Now, engaging folks in a city or town situation or traveling between towns on a road is a different story. Again, I would size them up as they come into view but I believe the best way would be to travel off the roads and stay out of sight.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Unless a family appears well stocked with gear I would consider them more dangerous than a single guy with a backpack. People with hungry kids do stupid things. I certainly wouldn't point a weapon at someone till I was ready to escalate the situation to violence and would consider anyone pointing a weapon at me such an escalation immediately.

Protocol for anyone you think would be a non threat is move to the other side of the easement and halt where you can quickly lay down cover fire and reach cover. Then hail with left hand friendly greeting. I would probably ask for news of road ahead if they had approached for my intended direction. This would show them I am not destitute enough to ask for supplies and tell them I don't plan on sticking around. Nothing wrong with keeping the conversation "long distance". 

Being a single traveling guy I'll probably avoid all meetings by traveling very slowly at night. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast, own the night, and roads are for people that like to be ambushed. Good general rules for post shtf travel.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Woody said:


> Sheesh, Being a single guy and everything no one would trust me and the pup!


It depends on what kind of dog you have 



CrackbottomLouis said:


> Unless a family appears well stocked with gear I would consider them more dangerous than a single guy with a backpack. People with hungry kids do stupid things.


Yes, sometimes - depending on what stage they are at. "ran out of food this morning" is a lot different than "kids haven't eaten in 3-4 days".

The rest of your post is all good stuff.

I think I forget to mention earlier, but I would not do any fires at night, so I won't be sharing a campfire with anyone. the light can be seen from too great a distance.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

If you have what you need, remain unseen. There is a saying in combat arms--he who sees first wins.

If you are in need, it's your choice to throw the dice. It is a huge gamble. Thieves, pedophiles, etc. look like anyone. So do the mentally ill and socio/psychopaths. You have no idea what you are exposing yourself to. Everyone has to sleep sometime.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Woody said:


> Sheesh, good thing I will be staying home. Being a single guy and everything no one would trust me and the pup!
> 
> I would take everyone on a first impression. First impression in this scenario is they are walking off the beaten path, prepared and obviously on their way to somewhere. Off to a good start! If we had to pass Id give them a Howdy and see if they responded. If yes I would try to engage them. You never know what they might have learned. If not I would go on my way. If they were up ahead I would let them stay there but also try and let them know I was behind them, if they did not notice me already. Id call the dog and give them a wave as they turned to look at us.
> 
> ...


I like and agree with your comments.

IMO, to both see each other, one of three scenarios play out.

1) we are resting and they are either headed same direction or opposite
2) visa versa
3) we are both going opposite directions.

In any 3, one of us would always have a weapon at a somewhat ready position. Not sure if I am using term correctly there, what I mean is how you would carry your weapon properly while traveling to or from a hunting position - in front of you not slung over a shoulder. In all three scenarios, we would give a cautious but friendly Howdy and we would try to attempt at a safe distance to gain information - especially with #3 - what's going on ahead, while providing information behind us.

First impressions are everything... If they look starved, sick, not prepared, gang-banger then the response would be different


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Yes, information on the road ahead would be priceless. Is there good water, did you see anyone… They might even be going to a larger camp which would provide more eyes for security. 

True, they could also be blood thirsty psychopaths. I’m willing to bet that in a true SHTF situation where things are going bad and folks are bugging out that you will be able to tell who is who. The bad guy will not have a ton of camping gear, only weapons. The good folks will be carrying a heavy load, or at least enough to get them someplace.

I won’t be worrying about it, I’m staying put. I will be worrying about having folks approach my place and that is how I am setting things up. BTW, the pup is a 19 month old female black lab. More of a licking threat than a biting one but has a big girl bark. To hear her in the dark you would never know what she is, except for it is not a little animal barking at you… With the tail wagging that is. That is why we need the cover of darkness or a door!


----------



## GrinnanBarrett (Aug 31, 2012)

If you are on a well traveled path be sure you see people coming from the opposite direction. If you do not that is your first red flag. What is going on up ahead? 

Having a forward pathfinder is also a good thing. Someone who like Crackbottom who can travel well alone and scout out the road ahead. Traveling with a large group of well armed folks is a big plus. 

Moving quickly as a crisis starts is very important. The longer you wait the more danger you are in. Bad guys are going to be in as much shock as you are. On the trail itself during the first twenty four hours your biggest problem may come from panicked adults trying to flee the city with no plan and no provisions. In panic fear becomes a motivator to take whatever they need from the weakest ones they find. this is where the normally good guys go bad. In their mind it is okay since they are trying to take care of themselves and their families. 

I personally do not like using pipeline right away as my way to travel. They are mostly overgrown and very rough terrain so pulling a cart or a bike is a tough thing to do. Moving will be slow to say the least. Also remember they are meant to move liquids like water or oil and not people. When you come to water for example there is no provision for people to cross. Also when they move through a populated area you become exposed and in a small group. 

As for contact with the locals, I would recommend that you get to know folks along your chosen routes NOW. Don't wait to introduce yourself to them when all you know what has broken loose. If they know you and the fact that you have a place that is yours you are moving toward the more likely they are going to be to let you through. I have a good friend in OK who has kids who live with his ex wife. He has horses and plans to go get them if he has to. As a practice he rides his horse along his chosen routes on the weekends and meets and greets the local folks along the way. They know him and their kin folks know him. He is not a person they FEAR. Fear is going to drive a lot of people to do things they would not do under ordinary circumstances. I am talking about both sides.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

cowboyhermit said:


> immediately after shtf events in the past we have usually seen an outpouring of mutual assistance. There have certainly been examples of individuals and groups doing bad things but this has been a very small minority. To find examples of family attacking family to any extent it is not easy unless people are starving already.


The behaviors vary depending on community. Compare the Grand Forks flood of 97 to the Kobe Earthquake to what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina to the Calgary floods. Only Katrina showed the dog-eat-dog behavior we all fear. The other communities showed much higher levels of cooperation. The Kobe quake aftermath even had the Yakuza taking truckloads of water and food into the badly damaged areas and distributing these supplies to survivors and the only incidence of looting that was recorded was that of an African who was temporarily in Kobe and no instances of native Japanese engaged in looting for they chose instead to patiently wait in lines in order to get their relief supplies.


----------



## MDsapper (Mar 12, 2013)

during that kind of situation the only time i would be out was if i was hunting/traping and if i was able to get a decent amount of meat i would offer some as a sign of good will


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

Aliaysonfire said:


> Ok, so things are nasty- people are scared. You're walking to your bug out location- but you were smart and used pipeline easements for your route- it takes longer but you know there won't be many others on the pipelines. And then you saw them- a family that looked like yours. Everyone was packed out just like yours. How do you "pass" them? Do you engage in conversation or hide as soon as you see them? What if it's a lone person- man or woman. Old or young. The main thing is that they don't appear to be a threat and they have seen you. What is your response?


_"How do you "pass" them?"_

If they were ahead of me walking in the same direction I was. I would get off the trail in one direction, circle back to the opposite side and wait out the rest of the day/night.

If they were walking towards me I would stay on the opposite side of the trail as them. When we got within easy talking distance I would stop and say "Howdy". The rest of my group would keep on walking until they were a safe distance down the trail but within easy visual range of me. I would exchange pleasantries and then start walking towards my group. My group would be ready and watching my back. Once we were out of sight we would get off the trail and find a good hiding hole for the rest of the day.


----------



## Aliaysonfire (Dec 18, 2012)

*great responses, i totally learned something.*

Hey everyone. I am so grateful for the responses. I tried to lay out the scenario out well enough to paint a good "scene" picture but from judging from some of the responses I'm not sure what materialized in my mind was clearly painted here. lol. (I'm saying that we were past the point of "things are in the beginning stages: "everyone is scared.")

Regardless EVERYONE had something positive and insightful to add and i'm so glad of that. I have read somewhere before about the intimately getting to know your route idea and that seems to be imperative now that I'm actually drawing out these routes to our bug out locations. It's really crappy for some of my friends that live where they have to cross several metropolis'  i don't even know what to tell them other than make sure they get out the earliest they can.

I loved the point out of the "single attractive female= IT'S A TRAP". that seems so cliche but you know that's exactly what's going to happen. and now i feel a little better about carrying my weapon at a ready state but not pointing it at everything that moves. lol. 
I just feel like it's such a scary topic- most of it will go off a snapshot of what you see. and most of "us" (prepper logic) know to travel by night- that's going to make these encounters even scarier!!!! what all this is telling me is to avoid the exodus on foot at all costs, especially with children. but if that's the only choice then I want to do it first, before the thugs look to the woods for fairer pickin's. 
I am hoping we have at least a week before the roaches start crawling out of the cities. 
That brings me to the next question...how much time do you think after SHTF that we have before people start taking to the woods?


----------



## MDsapper (Mar 12, 2013)

well i'm thinking that most of the city folk who have never been in the woods will wait til the very last possible moment. so depending on the severity of the situation i would say 2 to 3 weeks til they begin to move out of the city


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

Every unknown is a threat until proven otherwise. Remember, to them, you are an unknown. I am not concerned about a gun at low ready but if you point a gun at me you are threatening my life and are therefore a bad guy. Get some training so that you can defend yourself and just as importantly that you know what not to do. You don't want to make the mistake of making someone think you are a threat. Even a simple one or two day class will import more information than any thread can. 

When I take a class I do not pose any questions in an "end of the world" format. The non preppers in the class will think I'm crazy and the preppers will think I'm stupid for violating OPSEC.


----------



## 101airborne (Jan 29, 2010)

Without reading the other answers, Unless they are completely nude you MUST assume they ARE armed and therefore a possible threat. If it's a family they could be low on or even have no food so they may very well try to get you to let down your guard so they can rob you. If it's a single male again he could be a threat. If it's a single female to me the warning bells will be screaming because she may be a lure for someone or a group hiding and waiting to ambush you. IMO the only people you can trust 100% is YOU. 

Now I do believe that you can develop a "gut instinct" about people but to me that is something that takes time to develop and even then you can't be completely sure.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

I think that it would be three weeks or more before the roaches left the cities in any real numbers. Those that don't die off early from lack of medications and from being stupid, those that manage to survive for a month in a post SHTF urban area, will more than likely be the worst of the worst. The only disadvantage to them leaving the cities will be that they have left their comfort zone. Plus, the majority of city dwellers are not of the preparedness mindset. Whatever ammo they have managed to find/steal/aquire will likely be minimal, and all they have, unlike folks who think ahead! :sssh: Also, I wouldn't think they would get to go to the range to practice much, or get any formal training from those who have experience. Those things, I think will put them at a distinct disadvantage in a "very rural" area,(woods/forrest). Not to say for a second that they wouldn't be dangerous, just at disadvantage!! 

I say 3 weeks to a month, and they will spread out looking for something to eat/steal/rape/kill etc etc...


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

I do not mean to insult anyone's intelligence with the following.

Distance movement by groups is covered well in basic military manuals. They provide a time-tested framework you can customize for your situational/group needs (like a gaggle of kids along with the fighting-capable persons). Or you can use it evaluate your current plans. It takes a while to get your brain wrapped around the system as a whole, but every part of it is there for a reason.

Some highlights applicable to this topic would be:
*Movement Formations*; wedge, column, distance from person to person, etc. This lets you know where everyone is, spacing to keep one shooter from targeting everyone in one spot, options for working with different terrain, etc.
*Hand signals*; silent communication of what is observed or what you are supposed to do
*Immediate Action Drills*; what to do when X occurs; it could be sighting of another group, an ambush, simply moving from a path and into brush, etc.
*Sector of fire*; while it's named a FIRING sector, the more important responsibility involved is splitting up and assignment of OBSERVATION duties


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

Bobbb said:


> The behaviors vary depending on community. Compare the Grand Forks flood of 97 to the Kobe Earthquake to what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina to the Calgary flood...


We are indeed blessed with a people that give when they have something to give. That changes when there is nothing to give. If a nationwide SHTF happened today, it would be a matter of hours or less when you see help and movement restricted to family and friends only.

NOLA and Kobe are apples and oranges communities and cultures. Some towns and cities are simply dirty and the outcome will always be the same.

The LA Riots and Selco's experience are a prime example of what goes on in a world without rule of law. Read Scott Reitz's account of LA Riots if you can find it. Or the first person account "Jew Without A Gun" about the Riots. "Passing through" SHTF metropolitan areas is suicidal. And the 'burbs are so large as to turn several days journey into a few weeks.

Search Youtube for "Hood Life Vol 3" (NOT SUITABLE FOR FAMILY OR WORK) and see what kind of thug wannabes will be roaming the streets or leaving the cities.


----------



## Jimthewagontraveler (Feb 8, 2012)

Hello I have actually had a similar conversation recently in a pm here.
And this is the plan for our family wheather we are being approched on our land or traveling.
Any group half our number of fighters or more we avoid if at all possible.
Any number less we try to make contact with primarily by placing an old man directly in their path.
My porch or the middle of the road either is the same.
I will be sitting.
I would hope to have a cat or tiny dog in my lap.
If they walk right up they are 
1 Not smart [they might recieve help or be sent away]
2 Cocky [they will go away]
3 MEAN [they will be one less problem for the neighbor]
If they approach cautious maybe scared or nervous but heads up and on the swivel they will
1 Be helped if at all possible.
2 Be considered for membership.
3 Be allowed to leave with blessing and encouragement and what supplies we can afford to trade.
And as much as i hate to be blunt and go against peace time judgement they will be covered [ pointed at at all times from cover AND concealment.
If the situation goes bad I will be hugging dirt as the cat coughs up a pistol.
I think there will be real weapons appearing on the ground in short order one way or the other.
Their worst option after seeing the little old man would be to try to sneak around him.
So remember this as you travel be nice to random old folks DO NOT RUN! DO NOT HIDE! AND DO NOT POINT! 
Because it is already to late.
And I believe rats begin leaving the ship as soon as they smell smoke stupid rats just leave later.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> The behaviors vary depending on community. Compare the Grand Forks flood of 97 to the Kobe Earthquake to what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina to the Calgary floods. Only Katrina showed the dog-eat-dog behavior we all fear. The other communities showed much higher levels of cooperation. The Kobe quake aftermath even had the Yakuza taking truckloads of water and food into the badly damaged areas and distributing these supplies to survivors and the only incidence of looting that was recorded was that of an African who was temporarily in Kobe and no instances of native Japanese engaged in looting for they chose instead to patiently wait in lines in order to get their relief supplies.


You can't reasonably compare different communities because the situations were different. It's going to be much different when the dollar collapses and nobody can buy food. A lot of normal people will become dangerous.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

pandamonium said:


> I think that it would be three weeks or more before the roaches left the cities in any real numbers. Those that don't die off early from lack of medications and from being stupid, those that manage to survive for a month in a post SHTF urban area, will more than likely be the worst of the worst. The only disadvantage to them leaving the cities will be that they have left their comfort zone. Plus, the majority of city dwellers are not of the preparedness mindset. Whatever ammo they have managed to find/steal/aquire will likely be minimal, and all they have, unlike folks who think ahead! :sssh: Also, I wouldn't think they would get to go to the range to practice much, or get any formal training from those who have experience. Those things, I think will put them at a distinct disadvantage in a "very rural" area,(woods/forrest). Not to say for a second that they wouldn't be dangerous, just at disadvantage!!
> 
> I say 3 weeks to a month, and they will spread out looking for something to eat/steal/rape/kill etc etc...


It could happen the same day. If you're in the ghetto why would you look to rob people who don't have anything? Why not go into a richer area where people would have something worth stealing?


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Aliaysonfire said:


> Ok, so things are nasty- people are scared. You're walking to your bug out location- but you were smart and used pipeline easements for your route- it takes longer but you know there won't be many others on the pipelines. And then you saw them- a family that looked like yours. Everyone was packed out just like yours. How do you "pass" them? Do you engage in conversation or hide as soon as you see them? What if it's a lone person- man or woman. Old or young. The main thing is that they don't appear to be a threat and they have seen you. What is your response?


I'd greet them from a distance. Ask them what it was like up ahead. Then I'd tell them what I saw from where I came from. Then I'd wave and be on my way. I think in a SHTF world it's best not to get too close to people. If I had to knock on someone's door I'd knock and then back away at least 10 feet to show I wasn't threatening.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

BillS said:


> It could happen the same day. If you're in the ghetto why would you look to rob people who don't have anything? Why not go into a richer area where people would have something worth stealing?


Yup, it could happen same day. But most folks are resistant to abandoning what they know and are comfortable with. There are plenty of pickins in the cities outside of the ghetto.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Aliaysonfire said:


> what all this is telling me is to avoid the exodus on foot at all costs, especially with children. but if that's the only choice then I want to do it first, before the thugs look to the woods for fairer pickin's.
> I am hoping we have at least a week before the roaches start crawling out of the cities.
> That brings me to the next question...how much time do you think after SHTF that we have before people start taking to the woods?


Those that wait 3 weeks will not get far as there will be nothing to sustain them. The ones who moved out first will have gotten what they can and the people they will be looking to loot will have already used up all they had. I don't think they will even consider wondering aimlessly in the woods hoping to stumble upon a cache of food. They will stick to what they know, roads and homes. Think of it this way, would you consider wandering around in unknown woods looking for a stash or someone with food or would you stick to the roads or known paths? If I have to do any hunting I will be sticking to places I am familiar with and they are all close to home.

If they are leaving an urban area on an empty stomach they are not going to travel 20 miles a day. Will they have thought to bring something to carry water? Will they have brought blankets or a way to make fire? Will they have thought of shelter or just have weapons? How long will those $200 sneakers hold up in a rural setting?

I believe most of the riff raff will hang in the city for those few weeks looting and partying. It is only after everything is gone that they will start looking for new supplies. The gang members only know intimidation and brute force, they will use this all up in the city.

Then we have the educated corporate type folks, high society if you will. They will know nothing or very little about survival outside their catered world. Heck, there are many here at work who don't know how to boil an egg and freely admit it. They will either starve on their own or become prey if they leave their homes. If they are early enough I'm sure they will be able to buy their way to somewhere safer.

The regular Joe's. I believe they will become very dangerous. They work for a living so have some street smarts. They have families and will do anything to sustain them. They will have weapons and know how to use them. They will come looking for food.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

The "corporate type folks" will be consumed by the "roaches" in the first few weeks, when that happens "regular joes" will have given up hope and will be on their way out of hell. 

Whatever is left on the outskirts will be secured by the "Joes" first, and they will fight back when "roaches" come to search for it as well. "Joes" will need to organize in order to fight off the "horde of roaches".

Those who have prepped should be a fair distance away by then.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

I think if things get to that point, these rules would be reasonable and safe to follow.

Wait to be invited on to others property. On the frontier , they would hail the house before entering the yard or campsite and wait to be invited in.

You would show your hands and tell the owners whether you were armed or not.

You should stay out of reach of a stranger at all times . This means not offering your hand or accepting his until you feel safe doing so. Originally, shaking hands was a way of offering your sword hand, to show you meant no harm.

Always disclose other members of your party . If they are discovered hiding, the reception may turn ugly .

The longer you can talk to a hostile individual, the more human you become and the lower his threat assessment becomes .


----------



## truecarnage (Apr 25, 2010)

Aliaysonfire said:


> And when I say "don't appear to be a threat" I don't mean they aren't armed, they just don't look starved or crazy and they didn't shoot you or your party as soon as they saw you.
> How close is too close for a stranger? Do you let them share your campfire if they ask? How do you "get to know" another person that obviously was more prepared than the average bear? What do you assume?


Its like sharks, it's the one you don't see that you need to worry about the most.
If you're out in the woods and see a bear you size it up, assess it's intent, you can't talk to the bear but you get the best possible feeling about what's going through the bears mind.
And always remember the " bear " probably thinkin the same thing.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

A few more dynamics involved with "meeting people" are our natural caring tendencies and decision-making.

At some point or another in our lives I'd bet almost all of us have spent a significant amount of our time, finances and/or emotions in trying to help someone in need. Somewhere in there we were "hooked" into involving ourselves--for better or worse. 

Entertaining the idea of meeting another person or group will involve the possibility of setting that hook. Even if you do not have a hook set, someone else in your group may. And just about every group you meet will have some tale whether they seek your charity or not.

This brings us to decision-making. It gets very complex with the differing mental and emotional constitutions within a group. Often the final decision isn't acceptable to all. And--whatever the decision--it may cause internal friction for the original group members for some time after.

All that said, it is my opinion that you should only attempt meeting a group when you are at a strong advantage. Those necessary advantages may include an overwatch position by a group member, it may mean a very defensible position, it could be as simple as a very strong group willing to share the "risk" of whatever becomes of the group's best decision.

I would personally be very hard pressed to open up my group to an outside group while on my way to my intended BOL or soon after arriving. I believe outside group contact is eventually desirable. Once you are in command of your area or at least established in it.

My MO on the trail would be to wave them off or otherwise let them know to keep their distance. It is not difficult to signal your desire to be left alone without starting a firefight. 

There are a million what-ifs and conditional situations. If you stop a rape and pillage with deadly force, what will you do with the few injured victims obviously in need of care? If you come across someone obviously being held against their will, what do you do once you've liberated them? Are you sure you eliminated all the bad guys--or will you have a revenge killer on your trail?

Love. Innocent as a dove, wise as a serpent.

The 1956 book "Death of Grass" is a timeless read about SHTF travel, personalities and realities. If SHTF happens, it will surely be bizarre at best. Death of Grass can be found as a PDF.


----------



## headhunter (Nov 21, 2008)

When you observed them were they moving? If not, doesn't matter what gender, age, manner of dress- be wary- there could be more than what you observe even through your binos. If they've moved a reasonable distance from where you first spotted them it is less likely there are others lurking. I don't know the age of your son, if he is old enough he should hang back and preferably off to one side for the duration of your first encounter. It would be prudent for him to remain there for enough time to insure there is not harm meant. If you choose to pass by the others, he should wait until you are passed the other group far enough and off to the same side he went in on to cover his passage. ( Choosing the same side of the pipeline insures you won't be shooting directly at each other.)
It is not what we wish for, but, you have worked and planned too hard to throw it away. If the world were the same, but it is not or you would not be on the trail.


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

For what I have seen after the many heart breaking events in the past few years, I only have good reports, neighbors helping each other, communities from afar coming to the help of those in need, I think we have more good people than bad, we just have to get together more often.


----------



## Idaholady (Apr 24, 2010)

I read 'Lights Out' and it gave some of the similar scenarios. Some folks cutting through the woods were just trying to get someplace; while others were out to assault others.

In the book, the town set up blockades and allowed people to 'pass through' they weren't allowed to enter the town.

It would be best to travel with someone or in a group; if you encounter another group; some of your people could drop off into the brush and provide back up incase of an altercation. Most people are talking when they walk, so they'll be heard well before they are seen. Otherwise, you have to use your gut feeling if you are going to go it alone.

If there are children in the group, then you may be safer than if it were a rough and tumble looking group of people...

Timing has a lot to do with any situation. The first weeks; people have died off, the looters are busy in the cities and others are going to be walking out of the cities; they probably will not be well prepared or used to even walking any distance. They won't have proper clothing or walking attire. They might be robbed or killed. They'll stick to the streets/roads/highways; they don't even have a destination......they'll be hoping someone will take them in....
Unfortunately, its going to be tragic if this scenario were to happen.....and lets hope it doesn't.


----------



## Qwertyportne (Jan 27, 2012)

Networking is acquiring the mindset and skills to transition from the independence of escaping the disaster itself and the resultant moochers and militants to the interdependence of a small group of survivors who are no longer prepping but surviving. Crops require irrigation, so lakes, rivers and springs are likely places to meet like-minded survivors. Farming skills are more likely to get you into a group than computer skills.

•Evolution is evidence that groups survive and individuals die; 
•But large groups tend to suffer personality conflicts, disagreements and rivalries; 
•Small groups are more likely to agree and cooperate in life or death situations; 
•Build friendships with people willing/able to network before, during and after a crisis; 
•People likely to be motivated, loyal and prepared for a short or long term crisis; 
•People likely to cooperate when agreement is essential to the group's survival; 
•Trust takes time -- start now and pay attention to what they do, not just what they say; 
•Share information but not your own preparations until you know them better; 
•Make a plan for dealing with moochers and militants 
•Distribute two-way radios and program them for a privacy tone; 

Most of us have learned to tolerate one another pretty well. But in a survival situation, relationships can become strained. The family is the core unit. When things get tense, we tend to see others, even close friends, as outsiders. But even if your beans, bullets and band aids get you and your family through the first six months of a global disaster, sooner or later you will be compelled to join a larger group of like-minded people to pool your resources and survival skills.

And there's the potential rub: like-minded people. WWII is a good example of how well people can cooperate when the stores are open, the lights on, and the enemy is on the radio--not roaming the streets with an attitude and an appetite for violence. The veneer of civilized behavior really is only a few days thin. If SHTF here at home, how will you handle an angry father coming up your driveway to feed his family at the expense of yours? Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Block parties might be a good way for strangers to explore ways to cooperate in a crisis. But even a short-term crisis is no party, and when things get really bad, you should know the people you are yoked with very well. Here are some questions to answer as an essential part of your plan to survive:

•Would they behave like a victim or a survivor when disaster strikes? 
•If they know you are prepared, would they be a moocher or a militant? 
•Or take a pro-active attitude toward getting prepared by learning from you? 
•Do they usually fix things themselves? Or call a plumber or a handyman? 
•Are they conservative or liberal towards outsiders, beggars, people in need? 
•How do they handle problems like their car not starting or a leak in the roof? 
•How likely is it that they would shoot somebody who was shooting at them? 
•Will their core beliefs, values and principles harmonize or conflict with yours? 
•Would they be stubborn or cooperative when agreement was essential for the group's survival? 
•Would they change the way they think and act to ensure there is a tomorrow? 
•The one they want, not the one handed to them by circumstances or corrupt leaders? 
•Would they roll up their sleeves and begin to rebuild America from the bottom up? 
•Or wait for the government to bail them out from the top down?


----------



## Aliaysonfire (Dec 18, 2012)

I really enjoyed the lady comment.


----------



## kappydell (Nov 27, 2011)

I agree with BillM - frontier etiquette would apply. What is 'frontier etiquette? 

Upon approach of another's land or camp, you hail the camp - not doing so would be interpreted as 'sneaking up' and could be fatal. How do you do it? Just call out (from a position of cover to be safe) "Hello, the camp!" 
Others in control of the camp/land/checkpoint would then answer either 'come in' or 'show yourself' or 'go away' 'keep moving' etc.

If one is in transit, it would be the first thing established by both parties: "I am just passing through and require no supplies". One should not be insulted if an escort is provided (just to make sure you DO just pass through and are not a thieving varmint (which would be dealt with harshly). 

In frontier etiquette, to step down from your wagon, horse, etc without permission of a challenging party would be considered trespassing, a possible threat, and also dealt with harshly. 

Weapons were not brandished about (but many did carry them in their pockets, loaded and ready to go, which explains the emphasis on 'show me your hands' or 'hands up' to determine threat level of an approaching party.) Brandishing weaponry was considered at the least foolhardy; at the most, a threat (and dealt with harshly). So just keep them holstered, folks, albeit ready to go, as you go through the verbal hailing and asking permission to pass. And don't be insulted by the command to show empty hands as proof of non-threat status. It is also a matter of 'frontier courtesy' to NOT demand disarming of people who have shown good faith and have not done anything threatening. Prejudging someone without cause is another trigger of hostilities.

As far as women, single men, etc, judge not on their appearance, but their actions. Are they open to scrutiny and does their speech ring true, or do they appear evasive (sneaky) which are 'varmint' traits. If just passing one another, you should not mind (nor should anyone you are passing) if you both keep up your guards, and do just that...pass by each other. 

If you are looking for an alliance, start with common tasks and judge actions (vs words) in performing those...ie, does one help in the acquiring of water from a common source (and demonstrate a potential for alliance) or does one refuse to help (demonstrating selfishness, and a person one would not ally with) or even impede ones access to water (a definite NON alliance). The second would require a little thought, the third would be a 'pass by only'. That is what I mean by judge actions, not words. Does the persons actions match their stated objectives (trustworthy) or not (liar and potential varmint).

This kind of discernment is learned by practice. It used to be called 'street smarts' and helped one avoid trouble in bad neighborhoods. It has to do with mutual respect as well. Hopefully you will have developed the skills; if not you should learn them asap, because lacking them you could end up in serious trouble.

Finally, if there is a TRUE need of something for your party (food, medical aid) make it known, but with the knowledge that the other(s) may not have anything to spare for your aid. In that case they should make that known politely, and neither party should be angered/aggrieved/etc by such statements. Facts are facts. But those who are greedy on either side of such a transaction (asking for things not truly needed for preservation of life, or refusing such aid as one is able to preserve a life) generally do not get along or last very long. 

Unless you are spoiling for a fight, that is. Those who to interact peacefully should ALWAYS keep their guard up and weapons handy. And a sensible person would expect that and not take insult at strangers being wary of them. 

Those who spoil for a fight can usually find one, and do not live long.

Last but not least, politeness can defuse a critical situation. Don't be nasty and provoke things. Life will be enough of a challenge without making things harder.


----------



## josephmrtn (Sep 18, 2012)

Tirediron said:


> After SHTF and now you need to listen to what your "body" is telling you does the hair on the back of your neck stand up when you first see them, in the modern over crowded world most people shut down their natural warning system. the way you feel about people (not including sterotyping) before a word is spoken is a lot better indicator than what you think about them after they have talked. many really nasty nasty people have a nice smooth exterior. Many rough looking, sounding people have a heart of gold.


+1 plus I'm not lookin to hook up with some city dude who has never done a lick of work... I'd MUCH rather be in company of a hard working country boy/gal so to speak


----------



## Outpost (Nov 26, 2012)

kappydell said:


> I agree with BillM - frontier etiquette would apply. What is 'frontier etiquette?
> 
> Upon approach of another's land or camp, you hail the camp - not doing so would be interpreted as 'sneaking up' and could be fatal. How do you do it? Just call out (from a position of cover to be safe) "Hello, the camp!"
> Others in control of the camp/land/checkpoint would then answer either 'come in' or 'show yourself' or 'go away' 'keep moving' etc.
> ...


kappydell,

I quoted this in its entirety, because I believe in its wisdom. I believe you have articulated the beginnings of what should be etched in stone, as it pertains to encounters in such a scenario.

...and now a disclaimer...
Use of the word "you" in the following post, is *not* to refer to any individual, (especially "you", kappydell,) but merely a generalization for the purposes of expounding upon a principle. 
disclaimer mode off:

We've had many such discussions on this board, and others. "What to do when encountering another in a disaster situation".

I suppose, being a simple man, I see things simply. Believe it or not, my birthday actually is July 4th. I turned 57 yesterday. In and of itself, that isn't significant. What is, in my opinion, significant, is that at 57 years of age, I can say, quite truthfully, that I have never caused harm out of anger. Not once... and I believe that I have managed to all but weed it completely out of my nature. Fear, on the other hand, is a different story.

While we all tend to filter things through our own life experiences, I find that most people are the same. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens, humans are inherently wicked creatures, trying desperately to do the right thing. Causing harm out of anger, or greed for that matter, is simply wrong. Doing so out of a reasonable fear, for all intents and purposes, is justice. Make me angry, and we'll go nose-to-nose and holler a lot, but I won't cause you harm. Make me afraid of you, and I'll look for the first tactical opportunity to kill you... and so will those with whom I travel... or camp.

Even most current state laws have a provision for the use of deadly force in the case of "Reasonable Fear". If you're doing no wrong, and I point a weapon at you, the rules of "reasonable fear" apply, and you have the right, and, some would argue, perhaps even the obligation, to eliminate me. Remember, without reciprocity, there is no justice. So please, if I'm doing no wrong, don't raise a weapon to me.

While the details and technicalities may be different, I find the principles the same *PRE* as well as *POST* apocalyptic. The whole reason to survive, should such a calamity befall us, is to rebuild our society into a productive and benevolent form that *protects and safeguards* the rights and freedoms of the individual. This can not be accomplished by people who have no respect for those of another. There's no purpose for survival, if survival is the only purpose. Life is, after all, terminal. *Nobody gets out alive.* It's what we do with it that counts.

Keeping one's guard up does not mean being the aggressor. There will absolutely be those who will act out of selfishness and greed and lust for blood. They'll be easy to identify. They'll be the ones acting like Rambo on the rag. It's probably fair to consider them a form of walking re-supply. If, on the other hand, someone, or some group, affords me respect and civility, they will absolutely receive it in kind.

While we may vent and fantasize, I find that deep down, most people feel the same. I always tried to teach my children, "If you want me to respect you, be respectable. If you want me to trust you, be trustworthy."

Among the honorable, respect begets respect. I will afford respect to all who allow me the opportunity. Those who dont....

...well... I think it's reasonable to fear them.....

$.02 deposited.


----------

