# Fight or Run?



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

Whenever I get into a discussion about WTSHTF or TEOTWAWKI even among prepared individuals, it seems many have a notion that defending their property and confronting all life and possible opposition violently is the best answer. 

In other words, everyone has the idea that they are going to be able to remain in plain sight and just out power everyone and everything that approaches using modern firearms with a very limited supply of ammunition.

I find this to be incredibly stupid. I on the other hand find it far more intelligent to use a hidden bunker and remain out of sight as much as humanly possible and to only risk confrontation when necessary and to focus mostly on defensive tactics with offensive tactics being a last resort. I always get called a coward for this one.

Would you A) Fight and remain in sight mostly living in your house as if nothing has changed or B) Use a hidden and well reinforced bunker or room and prepare to hunker down until things blow over a bit and then only risk being seen as necessary?


----------



## gypsysue (Mar 27, 2010)

FreeNihilist said:


> Whenever I get into a discussion about WTSHTF or TEOTWAWKI even among prepared individuals, it seems many have a notion that defending their property and confronting all life and possible opposition violently is the best answer.
> 
> In other words, everyone has the idea that they are going to be able to remain in plain sight and just out power everyone and everything that approaches using modern firearms with a very limited supply of ammunition.
> 
> ...


Glad you feel comfortable expressing your opinion. Guess you won't mind if I say I heartily disagree! I think most of us are making the best plans we can based on our own situations and knowledge. I'd hate to spend a few months or years in my bunker just to avoid confrontations.

Please make sure you watch your language. Words like "stupid" aren't very welcome on this forum. Be respectful of others and of others' plans and opionions, and we'll do so for you.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

FreeNihilist said:


> ...In other words, everyone has the idea that they are going to be able to remain in plain sight and just out power everyone and everything that approaches using modern firearms with a very limited supply of ammunition.
> 
> *I find this to be incredibly stupid. I on the other hand find it far more intelligent *to use a hidden bunker and remain out of sight as much as humanly possible and to only risk confrontation when necessary and to focus mostly on defensive tactics with offensive tactics being a last resort. I always get called a coward for this one. ...


Look, the jury is still out regarding your intelligence. After you've been here awhile maybe people will believe that you are ... or maybe they'll be convinced you're not. But one thing is for sure. When you start telling other people they or thier plans are "incredibly stupid" and equate yourself as "far more intelligent" your time on this forum is going to get limited real quick. We've had a several of you "super intelligent" types lately and they've all been sent packing.

So ... if you plan on sticking around show a little common sense and good manners and quit believing your own hype. If you are that intelligent people will see it for themselves. If you aren't? No one will _ever_ be able to convince you otherwise will they? Take a good look at the last quote this post? Are you a good investment?


----------



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

gypsysue said:


> Glad you feel comfortable expressing your opinion. Guess you won't mind if I say I heartily disagree! I think most of us are making the best plans we can based on our own situations and knowledge. I'd hate to spend a few months or years in my bunker just to avoid confrontations.
> 
> Please make sure you watch your language. Words like "stupid" aren't very welcome on this forum. Be respectful of others and of others' plans and opionions, and we'll do so to you.


My intention isnt to offend anyone. I am merely expressing my feelings and opinions on the subject in an honest manner. My intention is to simply get a feel for what others feel on this subject or if I am alone in my convictions. Im not intending to say people are stupid but rather that I find certain ideas stupid as does everyone in the world. We all have our opinions. I didnt intend to show any disrespect at all.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

FreeNihilist said:


> ... Would you A) Fight and remain in sight mostly living in your house as if nothing has changed or B) Use a hidden and well reinforced bunker or room and prepare to hunker down until things blow over a bit and then only risk being seen as necessary?


Depends on the situation.


----------



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

mosquitomountainman said:


> Look, the jury is still out regarding your intelligence. After you've been here awhile maybe people will believe that you are ... or maybe they'll be convinced you're not. But one thing is for sure. When you start telling other people they or thier plans are "incredibly stupid" and equate yourself as "far more intelligent" your time on this forum is going to get limited real quick. We've had a several of you "super intelligent" types lately and they've all been sent packing.
> 
> So ... if you plan on sticking around show a little common sense and good manners and quite believing your own hype. If you are that intelligent people will see it for themselves. If you aren't? No one will _ever_ be able to convince you otherwise will they? Take a good look at the last quote this post? Are you a good investment?


It honestly doesnt matter what people think as far as my intelligence goes. Some people think I am brilliant, others crazy and others think Im quite the idiot. But that is their construct and opinion and opinions dont make facts or reality.

I do not feel nor did I intend to lack any manners. I apologize if my post was taken as rude or disrespectful. I was merely explaining my opinion and asking others opinions, nothing more.

I did not equate myself as being intelligent nor suggest it. I simply personally find the IDEA of a defensive posture more intelligent in my experience. Others may find their experiences differ. We all have ideas and we all find some ideas stupid or unintelligent.

I think you misunderstood most of my post as I am not saying I am intelligent in any manner as that is purely a relative term in all regards. Rather I was saying I find certain ideas to be smart in my book and others to be not so smart in my book.

My goal wasnt to do anything than to try to compare plans and share ideas. I bear no hostility nor superiority to anyone here. I apologize if my post was misunderstood or ruffled any feathers. I come in peace.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

I think that being as invisible as possible is a good plan,but I will defend what is mine to the best of my ability. when the rule of law breaks down it becomes the rule of the jungle and if somebody wants to play in my tree , things might get rough. 
I really don't see "the golden hoards" as being a problem in my part of the world most will stay in their own comfort Zone as long as they can (I hope)

Thank you for explaining your position in your last post, as the previous members said we have had a few less than pleasant encounters lately, this is a friendly helpful forum, hope you enjoy your time here


----------



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

What is suggested here isn't practical.

I don't have two houses miles apart.

There are only 10 houses on this street; I know not the neighbors' names so let's call them residents.

They probably know I only go out when the weather is above 40 degrees and not raining....now, if for some reason, they don''t see my husband and me for a few weeks, and there has been a major disruption of food supply, wouldn't they come visiting without an invitation??

So, we plan on letting all 'residents' know we are armed and guarding our home kinda 'up close and personal'.


----------



## FirstActionSelfDefense (Jan 16, 2011)

FreeNihilist said:


> I on the other hand find it far more intelligent to use a hidden bunker and remain out of sight as much as humanly possible and to only risk confrontation when necessary and to focus mostly on defensive tactics with offensive tactics being a last resort. I always get called a coward for this one.


I agree. You do what needs to be done to survive, and protect yourself and your loved ones. Fight if you really have too. If not, then I feel the 'run and hide' method is the way to go.

I wouldnt worry about people calling me a coward in this respect. Material possessions can be regained, life can not.

Of course i say this but I was in the Army for some years and although now out and not required to serve, if Australia was being invaded, Id definately fight for countries freedom.

So Im a hypocryt... eh


----------



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

JayJay said:


> What is suggested here isn't practical.
> 
> I don't have two houses miles apart.
> 
> ...


It's not practical for everyone I suppose to be able to hide fully as not everyone has a way of constructing a bunker I suppose or sealing off a secured area but there are people Ive talked with, who intend to set up no defense and just intend to shoot anything that crosses their yard/property relying on purely offensive tactics. The issue with this becomes, that no one can see everything, others will be armed at some point, and people have to sleep and looting will occur in the night.

In my experiences, people will almost always choose the easiest targets, with the exception being that they will choose harder ones if they know there is a better payoff. Generally speaking of course. I feel it is important to at least attempt to barricade, seal or otherwise put up defenses to at least try to dissuade people from choosing your own house to ransack. If one in four people in america have guns that means at first one in four people will be armed until they run out of ammo.

And yes as soon as TSHTF people will be knocking on your door to ask for various things they dont have. People would be soliciting door to door among those they know to try and fill the gaps in their lack of preparedness. So youre right in that you couldnt just hide in the house.

There isnt always a lot of options but if you cant form a reliable group effort then barricades, deterrences or some other similar devices to set up a defense according to your abilities to do so would be the next best thing.

And of course no defense devices are perfect but the more you make people work for something, the less they'll attempt to get it.


----------



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

FirstActionSelfDefense said:


> I agree. You do what needs to be done to survive, and protect yourself and your loved ones. Fight if you really have too. If not, then I feel the 'run and hide' method is the way to go.
> 
> I wouldnt worry about people calling me a coward in this respect. Material possessions can be regained, life can not.


Precisely. I'm not worried per se about people calling me a coward but I find it obnoxious when people seem to think they can take on the US Army or play Rambo and take down large groups single handed and then call me a coward for not blindly charging guns blazing. Frighteningly enough, there is a fair number of individuals I've talked to who have this sort of idea firmly planted.

I come from the perspective that, you're always going to be overpowered sooner or later and that it only takes one mistake to lose your life. So I feel that avoiding as many confrontations as possible will undoubtedly increase your survival chances WTSHTF. Of course half the people who want to go guns blazing are local militia members or people of a similar ideology.


----------



## HozayBuck (Jan 27, 2010)

FreeNihilist said:


> It honestly doesnt matter what people think as far as my intelligence goes. Some people think I am brilliant, others crazy and others think Im quite the idiot. But that is their construct and opinion and opinions dont make facts or reality.
> 
> I do not feel nor did I intend to lack any manners. I apologize if my post was taken as rude or disrespectful. I was merely explaining my opinion and asking others opinions, nothing more.
> 
> ...


*Well I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your just trying to fit in and learn and i hope maybe teach some too...

Speaking for me.. I have no intention of living in a hole in the ground.. I will be out working , growing, planting, doing what it takes to live.. to assume that my doing so makes me a target will get you undone.. I ain't lived this long on the dark side because I'm stupid.. I may not be watching but i assure you somebody will be... and yes i think I have the abilities to defend my homestead... I may lose but it will be very costly for whomever and in the end they will get nothing because there will be nothing to get..

Never assume... remember?.. because you don't believe in anything don't mean there isn't something out there that believes you would make a nice snack ...

Now if you know how to build a great underground bunker and hide it and survive...tell us!! we are all ...ears ( ? ) well we are willing to learn.. but speak in words we simple folk can understand.. *


----------



## Dixie (Sep 20, 2010)

FreeNihilist; 


> In other words, *everyone* has the idea that they are going to be able to remain in plain sight and just out power everyone and everything that approaches using modern firearms with a very limited supply of ammunition.
> 
> Not everyone.
> 
> ...


Now how bright would that be for me to answer?


----------



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

Dixie said:


> FreeNihilist;
> 
> In other words, *everyone* has the idea that they are going to be able to remain in plain sight and just out power everyone and everything that approaches using modern firearms with a very limited supply of ammunition.
> 
> Not everyone.


I meant everyone Ive personally spoken to IRL. I apologize for the lack of clarity.


----------



## gypsysue (Mar 27, 2010)

To some people, the whole idea of the SHTF is so overwhelming and scary, they don't want to think about it. Their form of denial probably also includes a false belief that things could never get "that bad" and they don't need to get out of sight.


----------



## FirstActionSelfDefense (Jan 16, 2011)

FreeNihilist said:


> Of course half the people who want to go guns blazing are local militia members or people of a similar ideology.


I think if you were planning to fight back, a local militia would be the way to go. If you are in a well organised group your chances would definitely increase, I mean, isn't that how independence day was born? (please excuse that my american history is not great, and feel free to correct me).


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

FreeNihilist said:


> Precisely. I'm not worried per se about people calling me a coward but I find it obnoxious when people seem to think they can take on the US Army or play Rambo and take down large groups single handed and then call me a coward for not blindly charging guns blazing. Frighteningly enough, there is a fair number of individuals I've talked to who have this sort of idea firmly planted.
> 
> I come from the perspective that, you're always going to be overpowered sooner or later and that it only takes one mistake to lose your life. So I feel that avoiding as many confrontations as possible will undoubtedly increase your survival chances WTSHTF. Of course half the people who want to go guns blazing are local militia members or people of a similar ideology.


If it ever gets where we have mobs, roaming the streets, and armed bands looking for food. It will place even those who have prepared to feed them selves in a precarious position.

My thinking is this. Unless you can go into some kind of totally secrete underground bunker and remain there until the mob is out of gas , ammo and energy, ( about a month), it would be unwise to attempt the bunker thing.

This is why I say this. My Dad was a Combat Engineer during WWII. During the battle of the bulge, his squad of 15 men , kept 250 German troops captive in their own bunker. They had food, water, ammo and an nonpenetratable concrete bunker with walls five feet thick.

The same bunker meant to protect them, became a trap when they could no longer control the entire area surrounding them.

After ten days, twenty men assaulted the bunker and once they had the area outside the bunker secured, the Germans had to surrender.

I would scatter some furniture and electronic equipment along with some garbage and trash in the yard around the house.

I would make some signs that say,

"CAUTION INFECTIOUS AID PATIENT"
"BLOOD BORN PATHOGEN PROTECTION REQUIRED"

I would place some bloody gauze dressings in a Red " infectious waste" bag on the porch and let the flies swarm them.

The idea is to make the place look like it has already been looted !
Make it look real dangerous to even be around!

It will be easer to scare them off than to fight them off!

I can fight a mob, but to make that my plan puts me and my family in a position where some body gets killed or wounded.

Remember in this kind of situation, there is no hospital to go to .

The mobs and gangs will not last very long and eventually the population will thin out.

Once this happens, you will be dealing with an occasional looter passer by.

This kind of disaster will thin out the population considerably

I was about 14 during the Cuban missile crises.

My dad took me to a meeting at the National Guard Armory.

They showed a film about a nuclear attack , how to build an under ground fallout shelter, how to stock it, and what you would have to do to defend it.

On the way home I asked Dad if we were going to build one and he said , "I don't think we will".

Why not , I asked, and he told me that he would have to shoot our neighbors to keep them out if there was a nuculer strike.

He asked me which neighbors I would shoot first, and started naming them?

I told him I didn't want to shoot any of our neighbors, they were our friends.

He told me that he had seen people in that kind of situation during the war and never wanted to see it again.

I asked him , Dad how would we survive he told me something I never forgot.

He said if we were attacked it may not be as bad as they said it would be, but if it was, there are
some things, that just are not worth surviving !

My dad was right and very wise !


----------



## kyfarmer (Feb 22, 2009)

Anyone that want's to make a go of it after the crap slap's the blade's will have to be ready to employ a host of defense and offense. Hide, ambush and defend up front there will not be just one thang that will fit all area's of this mess ta come. Living and working on the place will be a must as most others already know. If the community can keep it's cool later on and help each other, i think that would be the best for every one, if possible. Going it alone will be a tough row ta hoe. Work with what ya have and adapt to survive.


----------



## vn6869 (May 5, 2010)

FreeNihilist,
I have to say your choice of avatar and signature line pretty well give a picture of your thinking JMHO.

You started a good thread, one that has been hashed and rehashed on this and other forums. But not sure of your real intentions.

I agree with _FirstActionSelfDefense_ anyone, in ANY situation whether it be SHTF, a car accident, or whatever, will do whatever they think they need to for survival. Again, JMHO.


----------



## NaeKid (Oct 17, 2008)

FreeNihilist said:


> Whenever I get into a discussion about WTSHTF or TEOTWAWKI even among prepared individuals, it seems many have a notion that defending their property and confronting all life and possible opposition violently is the best answer.
> 
> In other words, everyone has the idea that they are going to be able to remain in plain sight and just out power everyone and everything that approaches using modern firearms with a very limited supply of ammunition.
> 
> ...


To get this thread back onto topic before I have to toss it into LTS ....

There are many levels of TEOTWAWKI as shown in different movies (ya, ya, Hollywood, but, stay with me here) from seeing something like WaterBorne (pathogens introduced to water-supply for localized terror) to 28-days-later (experiment on monkeys gone wrong creating zombie-like creatures) to all-out TEOTWAWKI as shown in "The Road", "Day after tomorrow" and "2012".

In the case of WaterBorne's premise, flight is better than fight to get away from the troubles. In that case, simply packing up the truck-n-trailer and heading away from ocean towards a fresh water-source (cold-spring) would be the safest way to survive, keeping in contact with the outside world via radio-communications.

In the case of 28-days-later, having a defendable bunker is the best choice and having huge stores of food available inside the bunker so that you do not need to go outside would be the preferred method of survival. Gardens, goats, pigs, horses will not help you during this time and may infact bring death upon you.

In the case of Day-after-tomorrow - you are screwed no matter what you plan. There is no place that you can go that is better, there are no gardens that you can grow for food and there is no need for guns for protection from two-legged predators - they would all be frozen in place unless they are prepared for arctic-exploration.

As situations change, sometimes being mobile is the right choice, sometimes staying put is the right choice and .... believe it or not, sometimes there isn't a right choice and you will have to either live or die by that choice. There isn't an easy answer to your question because life isn't easy.

Life isn't a movie with happy endings, life just has an ending. How we get there is our choice.


----------



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

I'm well aware that as situations change different measures are required.

I'm mostly I suppose thinking of TEOTWAWKI in the sense of a major natural EMP wiping out most electrical devices or Financial/Economic sudden collapse as I view these two situations as being the most probable currently. The mobbing and looting begins first often with hours or less and lasts for a solid period of time. Riding that out safely IMO is the most difficult initially to overcome. Once things die down significantly, plans may change of course.

A 28 days later scenario with a bunker IMO is probably going to be a good option for most TEOTWAWKI scenarios even if only initially. Of course natural disasters may entirely make such a plan non-viable. Katrina is a prime example of this. A flooded bunker is useless. Im not likely to run into flooding or hurricanes in my location but that doesnt make it impossible as nothing is truly impossible.

VN6869, Nihilism tells remarkably little about someone just as atheism or many other isms. It tells you what they believe or perhaps in some cases dont believe as in the case of atheism. But it doesnt tell one's intentions, morals, who they are, etc. Its a very small picture. It's like having a picture of a single leaf among an entire forest. My intentions are pure. I intended to get a feel for where everyone stands on the issue, perhaps learn a few things, challenge my own thinking so that I may be better prepared and similar intentions. Nothing nefarious.

BillM, I fully intend to use psychological warfare as you have described it. It is indeed easier to scare people away than to fight head on. This is obviously most effective if the TEOTWAWKI situation happens to involve an epidemic of a deadly disease.

FirstAction, yes militias were a very important part of American History. However our issues then were foreign threats whereas now it would be purely domestic. The government has been training against armed civilian and militia scenarios and fully intends to disarm them by lethal force if they even slightly resist. Militias are and will be a primary government target and well, you cant outgun the military and more than local Militia seems to think they can somehow. I personally avoid Militias because even though a portion of them are good men and women looking to protect themselves and their families, a portion of militia members are completely insane or just quite criminal in nature. Militias are a very mixed bag of people. Drawn to a militia for a wide scope of reasons. I personally would think they'd be among the first looters, because its everyone for themselves and theyre not going to sacrifice self survival for outsiders.

Some militias have been actively involved in anti-government and terrorist actions even. Some militias on the otherhand are very upstanding and provide local support to the authorities such as search and rescue, emergency situation assistance such as various disaster relief actions, etc but in my experience locally, few are very upstanding completely. Such groups seem to draw strange types often enough.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*The Donner Party*

I see you have read "The Donner Party"


----------



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

BillM said:


> I see you have read "The Donner Party"


The donner party?


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

FreeNihilist said:


> Would you A) Fight and remain in sight mostly living in your house as if nothing has changed or B) Use a hidden and well reinforced bunker or room and prepare to hunker down until things blow over a bit and then only risk being seen as necessary?


The mistake is when you limit yourself to two choices, when in fact there are almost always an infinate number of variables that would change the choices. In a SHTF senerio, we would stay in our home. We live in the country, so we're not as "in sight" as others. We live in an area where the cattle population way outnumbers the people population & gardens are the norm. Our water table is too high for a basement so an underground bunker would be flooded. No one with half a brain would assume anyone in our area was unarmed & easy prey but would know people will willingly help someone in need. These situations, & a miriad of others, change things.


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

FreeNihilist said:


> but there are people Ive talked with, who intend to set up no defense and just intend to shoot anything that crosses their yard/property relying on purely offensive tactics.


You do know there are areas of the US in which being on someone's property without permission is considered an "offensive" move & shooting them is called defending your property. Perfectly legal & morally acceptable. Sorry, referring to shooting folks on your property without permission as an "offensive tactic" just bothers me.


----------



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

tsrwivey said:


> You do know there are areas of the US in which being on someone's property without permission is considered an "offensive" move & shooting them is called defending your property. Perfectly legal & morally acceptable. Sorry, referring to shooting folks on your property without permission as an "offensive tactic" just bothers me.


Yes I know, but those areas arent as common as one would think but they do exist. Legality and morality really do not exist outside of the modern society structure. Without law keepers, what use are laws and who is keeping everyone in line anyways? Morals tend to take a backseat to survival as well. So I dont see the validity of moral and legal standpoints.

However at some point one will need to barter for something sooner or later. Shooting people for just setting a foot on the property isn't the most beneficial, though at any point even seemingly non-threatening individuals should be viewed with extreme caution, yes.

I feel it is offensive as in opposite of defensive ie attacking instead of defending not offensive in the sense of being offended.

There also runs the risk of shooting the wrong person and starting an all out war and leading to your own death and the looting of your items. For every man or woman who is heavily armed, there are several who are more heavily armed. Many people are also skilled at making explosives. Which can easily be lobbed into a house without being shot through a number of tactics. Everyone should assumed they are outpowered at all times and use shooting as a very last resort, IMO.


----------



## FreeNihilist (Jan 28, 2011)

tsrwivey said:


> The mistake is when you limit yourself to two choices, when in fact there are almost always an infinate number of variables that would change the choices. In a SHTF senerio, we would stay in our home. We live in the country, so we're not as "in sight" as others. We live in an area where the cattle population way outnumbers the people population & gardens are the norm. Our water table is too high for a basement so an underground bunker would be flooded. No one with half a brain would assume anyone in our area was unarmed & easy prey but would know people will willingly help someone in need. These situations, & a miriad of others, change things.


Im not limiting myself to two choices but rather making the discussion simplified as all tactics can be categorized into either defensive (hiding) or offensive (fighting) tactics/plans. However going into every variable would just confuse and dilute the conversation beyond use and would be very exhausting to outline in its entirety.

There are cons to living in the country as there are cons with everything. The number one thing in the average persons mind, in my experience is to head for the country areas in order to escape the towns and cities. The isolation is also a con. People will also assume that the average country person has a wealth of guns, food and supplies due to stereotypical thinking and misconceptions. So it makes one a prime target. Of course, the pros being that there may be less people to contend with and that you may be more out of the way vs other areas of living. Another negative is that in isolation, if people come across your house, they will approach as there are no other houses to choose from. With more houses you may be able to use psychological warfare to "convince" people to skip your house as there are enough houses around to loot to not risk certain things for a little supplies unless theyre very very desperate whereas in the country, if youre the only house for miles, they have a high motivation to search the house or attempt to.

You cannot rely on anyone in a survival situation. When the chips are down you will have very few if any reliable friends and allies. Self survival instinct overrides all other things.

Any variables change things, but a thousand "what ifs" still divide into defensive and offensive tactics. In any situation, everything can change minute to minute of course. Nothing is static. But when TSHTF at first, the plan one has will probably remain in place until the initial chaos settles a bit. For those of us closer to the city, the initial chaos will be the most trying and a solid plan will improve survival chances greatly.


----------



## Clarice (Aug 19, 2010)

At this time should the balloon go up we have no choice but to stay where we are. We will defend our lives and the supplies we have put back to the best of our ability. We have plans set and I will not air them for the world to read, but should you deciede to pay us visit make sure you let us know your intentions are good, one verbal warning and then 3 sec. later we start shooting. Just so you know my last time at the range with a handgun I hit the target 3 times in the heart and 2 times dead center the forehead. This was rapid fire not taking time to aim the weapon. 5 for 5 you don't want to mess with.


----------



## Ron22 (Oct 30, 2009)

In answer to the question... I don't have the means to build a bunker :hmmm: I doubt most people do. 

I'll make the best preps I can and try to keep a low profile. I would not wish to shoot anyone who left me another choice. Having said that I think most of us will do what we have to and hope for the best. What else can one do?

A lot will depend on the circumstances. I don't plan on having all my preps in one place. There are a lot of different potential scenarios.


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

FreeNihilist said:


> Yes I know, but those areas arent as common as one would think but they do exist. Legality and morality really do not exist outside of the modern society structure. Without law keepers, what use are laws and who is keeping everyone in line anyways? Morals tend to take a backseat to survival as well. So I dont see the validity of moral and legal standpoints.


Wow. I don't know about you but I don't need laws to keep me in line. I'm a big girl who knows right from wrong & have the spine necessary to do it. If this is truly your experience with people, you seriously need some new friends or medication.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*The Donner Party*



FreeNihilist said:


> The donner party?


The "Donner Party " was a waggon train of immigrents on their way to California in the 1840s who took an alternate route through the Rocky Mtns
to save time . An early snow storm caught them before they succeded to crossing and they were snow bound for three months. They lsot most of their provisions and their livestock. They ate what they had first , then the harness leather , then they ate each other. Seventeen made it out alive from "Donner Pass"


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Better double check*



tsrwivey said:


> You do know there are areas of the US in which being on someone's property without permission is considered an "offensive" move & shooting them is called defending your property. Perfectly legal & morally acceptable. Sorry, referring to shooting folks on your property without permission as an "offensive tactic" just bothers me.


You need to double check your info.

In all states of the USA , trespassing is a misdemeanor. You can not use deadly force on someone committing a misdemeanor!

If you check further , you will find that there are many persons and entities exempt from your "NO TRESPASSING" signs. Examples would be those with easements, (the electric company, the mailman, emergency service personell, etc.) Some of these folks can be ordered off your property and some can't.

In TX you can use deadly force to protect property only at night, but this has limitations too. For instance you better not be shooting anyone who has your permission to be there, ( like the Repo Man, or someone another member of your family has invited , like your wives boyfriend ).

General rules common to almost all jurisdictions , If someone is breaking into your home or has broken entry to your home, you can use deadly force.
You can use deadly force to protect your self or a third party from an immient threat of grave injury or death.

You can not use deadly force to protect your property from being stolen or vandalized, ( some exceptions apply in cases of arson).

If you could use deadly force to shoot a fleeing thief, I would never have had to chase one down on foot to arrest them. I could have just shot them.

If you order someone off your property and they attack you with deadly force, you can then use deadly force to defend your self but you can't just shoot them for treaspassing. Call the police.


----------



## Clarice (Aug 19, 2010)

In a SHTF situation, if someone is trespassing, I don't think you will be able to call the police as the phones may not be working and the police may not be working either. If that is the case and I ask someone to get off my property and they refuse, I will shoot.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

BillM said:


> You need to double check your info.
> 
> In all states of the USA , trespassing is a misdemeanor. You can not use deadly force on someone committing a misdemeanor!
> 
> ...


Bill: You might want to do some more checking. Some states have "castle doctrine laws" which give residents the legal right to protect their home from invasion _even if the intent is to steal from them_. It is limited in some ways depending upon the state you reside in so a person needs to know the law as it applies to them.

The thought is that anyone brazen enough to steal from a resident while the resident is there is capable of inflicting bodily harm and therefore a deadly threat and may be treated as such. Ideally, a resident will warn the intruder before killing them but if the intruder is dead they'll have a hard time crying "foul."

In most cases you are not required to give ground to home invaders or those invading your property if there's a reasonable belief that they are a threat to you or yours. The idea that you must have your "back against the wall" (in other words "cornered") and cannot avoid confrontation was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1895.

_"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[5][6]

In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905), where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:_

_"The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[7]
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)) when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[8]_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

This is not intended to be legal advice. It's the individual's responsibility to know thier state's laws regarding lethal force but to state that you cannot defend your property with lethal force for trespassing or theft is wrong. It depends upon state law and individual circumstances. *In all cases it is the individual's responsibility to know the laws governing their situation.*


----------



## Dixie (Sep 20, 2010)

FreeNihilist:
I'm mostly I suppose thinking of *TEOTWAWKI* in the sense of a major natural EMP wiping out most electrical devices or Financial/Economic sudden collapse as I view these two situations as being the most probable currently. The mobbing and looting begins first often with hours or less and lasts for a solid period of time. Riding that

-----------------------------------------------------------------Clarice:

At this time *should the balloon go up *we have no choice but to stay where we are. We will defend our lives and the supplies we have put back to the best of our ability. We have plans set and I will not air them for the world to read, but should you deciede to pay us visit make sure you let us know your intentions are good, one verbal warning and then 3 sec. later we start shooting. Just so you know my last time at the range with a handgun I hit the target 3 times in the heart and 2 times dead center the forehead. This was rapid fire not taking time to aim the weapon. 5 for 5 you don't want to mess with.

Clarice:

In a *SHTF* situation, if someone is trespassing, I don't think you will be able to call the police as the phones may not be working and the police may not be working either. If that is the case and I ask someone to get off my property and they refuse, I will shoot.

I believe "Free" was talking about after the SHTF not today's law. I agree with Clarice, but like Bill said, I would make sure of their intentions. No matter how moral a person was before, people change when disaster strikes and sometimes it's not for the better. I hope I never do but some are just bad from the start. JMHO


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

BillM said:


> You need to double check your info.


I'm no expert on use of deadly force law, (I'm a nurse by trade), but I do watch the local/state news & listen to the accounts of my friends & family in law enforcement. A quick google of an incident in Harris county TX where Joe Horn killed 2 crooks _at his neighbors house_, with clear intent & while giving a blow by blow on a recorded line with 911 (while they told him not to) might would interest you & illustrate my point. The only law that matters to me is the law that's actually practiced & I have the correct info concerning the _practice_ of TX self defense law.


----------



## BasecampUSA (Dec 26, 2010)

Dixie said:


> FreeNihilist:
> At this time *should the balloon go up *we have no choice but to stay where we are. We will defend our lives and the supplies we have put back to the best of our ability. We have plans set and I will not air them for the world to read, but should you deciede to pay us visit make sure you let us know your intentions are good, one verbal warning and then 3 sec. later we start shooting. Just so you know my last time at the range with a handgun I hit the target 3 times in the heart and 2 times dead center the forehead. This was rapid fire not taking time to aim the weapon. 5 for 5 you don't want to mess with.


Big 10-4... same here!! 
Hmmm... 5 for 5? me too! - I got a .410 + "Judge" by Taurus for my wife - Awesome! -that way I put way more in the heart and head, -more bang for the buck! #00, #4 or PDX1 shot








tsrwivey said:


> I'm no expert on use of deadly force law, (I'm a nurse by trade),


Great, we'll leave the crooks' triage up to you... - but it will be easy work from the lack of vitals 

- BC (ex-EMT)


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Deadly force and the Castel Doctrine*

The use of deadly force as described in every instance quoted above required or included an attack by the assailant, not just trespassing.
There is a marked difference between an attack and simple trespassing.
The Castel Doctrine gives you the right to assume that someone entering your occupied vehicle or home is a deadly threat and you can use deadly force to stop them.
What it changed in several states was your obligation to retreat from an attack in a place where you have the right to be. Such as in a public place.
It still requires you to be faced with an imminate threat.
If you look out your window and see someone stealing your vehicle, you can certainly confront them and it would be prudent to have your gun for the purpose of defending your self if you are attacked but you can not just shoot them unless you are attacked or a third party you are defending is in the vehicle.
If he is just driving away in your vehicle and you see him from your house , you can not use deadly force under the Castel doctrine to shoot him .
The police could not use deadly force in that situation and you can not either.
He is a thief not an assailant. He did not break entering and your vehicle was not occupied. He was not driving the vehicle in your direction or causing you a deadly threat.
In the case of the man in TX who witnessed a burglary of his neighbors property,( a felony being committed), he was acquitted because he attempted a citizens arrest, and instead of submitting to arrest, or simply fleeing, the burglar came toward him in an aggressive manner. He shot him and was acquitted because he had the right to be there . He had the right to attempt the arrest, and last and certainly the final thing, that gave him the right to move from the threat of deadly force, to the use of deadly force, was that the burglar, took a step in his direction, after being ordered to stop. Every thing he said to the dispatcher, on the phone prior to this, was excepted as excited utterances, but did not convict him of premeditating murder. 
In short it isn't what you say, but what actually happens, and the circumstances that it happens in.
I was a strong supporter of the passage of the Castel doctrine because it removed the presumption of guilt in clear cut cases of an intruder entering your home or vehicle while you or a third party was there.
In some states like California , you were actually required to flee your own home.
The Castel Doctrine was never intended as an excuse to shoot treaspassers.


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

BillM said:


> In the case of the man in TX who witnessed a burglary of his neighbors property,( a felony being committed), he was acquitted because he attempted a citizens arrest, and instead of submitting to arrest, or simply fleeing, the burglar came toward him in an aggressive manner. He shot him and was acquitted because he had the right to be there . He had the right to attempt the arrest, and last and certainly the final thing, that gave him the right to move from the threat of deadly force, to the use of deadly force, was that the burglar, took a step in his direction, after being ordered to stop. Every thing he said to the dispatcher, on the phone prior to this, was excepted as excited utterances, but did not convict him of premeditating murder.


He did not attempt to arrest them. Regardless, this situation is not the convergance of a unique set of circumstances with a new law. This way of seeing right & wrong is the norm here (which is how the castle doctrine was passed). This isn't the only story, this one just happened to make the news (most don't) & I could actually recall a name . There was the guy who drove up on someone trying to steal his boat, shot & killed him. Nothing ever came of it. People are shot for trespassing regularly, nothing ever comes of it. I've lived in Texas all my adult life, I am fully aware of how things are done here. I know it's strange to folks who don't live here (I have family from Ohio), but it is the way it is. As I've said before, how laws read & how they are practiced are sometimes two different things. I'm not interested in the letter of the law. All I care about is how it is actually practiced.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Again, in some states you can use deadly force to protect your property. In the case of someone stealing a vehicle if they are confronted and show any aggression and are near enough to be a threat you can most likely shoot them without serious consequences. The same when confronting someone on your property. They aren't supposed to be there. If told to leave and they don't they are in violation of the law. If they are aggressive and you fear it may lead to you or another innocent person being harmed you can shoot them. If they are not "armed" and you are it wouldn't be difficult to show you were afraid they would take your weapon from you and harm you with it. Again showing fear for your life. (It happens to cops way too often and they're supposedly trained to keep this from occurring.) In short, unless you shoot them in the back from long distance you'll probably beat the rap in states with a castle doctrine. In some states like Texas and Montana where we tend to think what's ours is our and we don't have to stand by while it's taken from us it probably won't even take that much to make it justifiable.

If you take the arguments people used who are trying to keep castle doctrine laws from being passed then (according to those people) you CAN shoot them for trespassing. A lot is going to depend on the local views of the issue.

Again, this is not legal advice. Just my opinion from what I've read and seen.

The police are (usually) held to a higher standard in matters such as these. I had a friend who was a cop and was in civies when he saw a crime being committed. He chased the guy and pulled his firearm while running. The crook had a crowbar. When he saw the gun he stopped, dropped the crowbar and pled for his life to be spared. When the cop pulled out his cuffs they guy got mad and told him if he'd known he was a cop he'd have kept running 'cause he knew a cop couldn't shoot him. Civilians, in some cases, can get away with more than cops can in similar situations.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

tsrwivey said:


> I know it's strange to folks who don't live here (I have family from *Ohio* ), but it is the way it is.


I can tell you that the pendulum has swung & that it is working that way here as well.

"I was honestly in fear for my life, your honor"

"good enough, next"

:lolsmash:

ok, that was satire... but it is happening, it's just not publicized here (I'm not sure if that's good or bad)


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

The_Blob said:


> ... ok, that was satire... but it is happening, it's just not publicized here (I'm not sure if that's good or bad)


Not sure if _what_ is good or bad?


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

The_Blob said:


> I can tell you that the pendulum has swung & that it is working that way here as well.
> 
> "I was honestly in fear for my life, your honor"
> 
> ...


My family is in the Trenton & Springboro area & they say things they are a changin' there. It's odd. Usually things go in the direction of loss of rights, not gaining them. Great to hear, though. There may be hope for the US yet!:usaflag:


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

BasecampUSA said:


> Great, we'll leave the crooks' triage up to you... - but it will be easy work from the lack of vitals - BC (ex-EMT)


I think I remember how to do CPR on a crook! That's where they're lying on the floor & you use your foot to do compressions & blow in their general direction for respirations. Right?


----------



## gypsysue (Mar 27, 2010)

tsrwivey said:


> I think I remember how to do CPR on a crook! That's where they're lying on the floor & you use your foot to do compressions & blow in their general direction for respirations. Right?


:2thumb:


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Texas*



tsrwivey said:


> He did not attempt to arrest them. Regardless, this situation is not the convergance of a unique set of circumstances with a new law. This way of seeing right & wrong is the norm here (which is how the castle doctrine was passed). This isn't the only story, this one just happened to make the news (most don't) & I could actually recall a name . There was the guy who drove up on someone trying to steal his boat, shot & killed him. Nothing ever came of it. People are shot for trespassing regularly, nothing ever comes of it. I've lived in Texas all my adult life, I am fully aware of how things are done here. I know it's strange to folks who don't live here (I have family from Ohio), but it is the way it is. As I've said before, how laws read & how they are practiced are sometimes two different things. I'm not interested in the letter of the law. All I care about is how it is actually practiced.


In Texas it is legal to shoot a trespasser at night, (but only at night),and only on your property , if you believe he is stealing. It is an antiquated law left over from when ranchers were protecting cattle from russlers!

It is also allowable to use deadly force in texas to resist an illegal arrest by a police officer !

Anywhere else you are required to submit to the arest and take up the illegal arrest in court.

Texas is an exception in those two regards.

I don't want to get in a whizzing contest with anyone!

My sole reason for posting on this matter, is to keep someone from making an assumption,that may result in them loseing their freedom, because they don't fully understand the law.

I don't think I'm smarter than anyone else, but this was my business for the last fifteen years !


----------



## rflood (Aug 19, 2010)

Fight or flight, always an interesting question. If one had the resources and we all know everyone doing prepping has a fully stocked, remote BOL with everything required to sit out the end of the world, the obvious answer is to leave. Those who don't have the luxury of the above would do the best they could to fly under the radar until the opportunity to vacate to a better location, but worst comes to worst you do what you have to do in order to protect, provide for those you are with.


----------



## ajsmith (Feb 1, 2010)

FreeNihilist, I think I understand your question. I also believe each of us has there own unique answer depending on there location (city, town, country), the type of crisis (power outage to full blown total disaster). I can only answer for myself. I would try to stay put as long as possible but when it's time to leave I will leave. I'm am slowly getting prepared to leave, I have built a pick up box trailer to help move out (will be building a smaller home built trailer for my Jeep also). I have three ways I can go, two of which are prearranged with family and "like family" friends. I can go into more detail but don't think it's necessary. Thanks for the question. :thumbraise:


----------



## gypsysue (Mar 27, 2010)

But aj...if you wait it out until you have to leave, will it be safe to drive out and pull your BOV trailer?


----------



## ajsmith (Feb 1, 2010)

gypsysue said:


> But aj...if you wait it out until you have to leave, will it be safe to drive out and pull your BOV trailer?


gypsysue, I guess I won't know until or if it happens. I do plan on keeping my eyes open and hopefully buy a little extra time. It also helps that I live in a fairly small town, I hope that will buy some time too. When things "start" to go bad I plan on putting my trailers in the garage and load them with what I need to take. At that point all I need is five minuets to hook up and we're gone. I live six minuets from work and two minuets from any stores or gas stations but still am only a hundred yards from the city limits and six different streets to get to where I think I may need to go. Until a real crisis come my way all I can do prepare, hope and guess. :scratch


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

In keeping with the guides of the opening post, hunker down or shoot all comers, I would choose, if I had the proper facilities, to hunker down and let the worst of the storm pass. In a total collapse of society, when everyone is left to fend completely for themselves, hunger and fear will drive any who can survive the first few weeks, in search of what ever resources they can find. IF, and I don't... IF, I had a bunker where I had my stores and felt confident that I could remain there undetected while the main home was being ransacked, I would do that. Shooting anybody who came around looking for food to survive, or to feed their children, to me, is not the best answer, if it could be avoided. I mean. what would you do with all the bodies??!! You could stack em up and reinforce your defences, or take the time to give them a proper burial, or just let em lay out there as a deterrent! IMO, once the first shot is fired you are advertising that there is something you have that is worth defending, making the starving folks out there more determined. 
Now like I said, I don't HAVE a bunker, but I would like to build one someday. The plans for which are fairly detailed. Now I just hope there is still time...


----------



## SuspectZero (Feb 3, 2011)

I gotta agree with aj. It all depends on the situation and with shelter being a must for a family i dont see any reason to leave a home unless forced to ie. natural disaster, intruders, or lack of food. There are things u can do to still lay low. The obvious being trash the place. Put trash in the lawn if others have it. Grafitti or broken windows. Whatever will make your home less appealing to others. 
A post i read earlier talked about a guy with a BOL in hopes it will do. But the poster said its an obvious place and who knows how many others would go to that location. The last thing i would want to do is stock up a BOL just to see it taken before i can get there. 
I think if tshtf complete breakdown most people (good and bad) wouldnt be able to stay in town more than a cpl weeks making the roads somewhat safe to travel. Of course no one knows until in the situation.


----------



## semperscott (Nov 7, 2010)

I shall continue to work around my property; always with a weapon at hand and someone I trust in overwatch. The only time I would go on the offensive would be when attacked or when/if I detected a hostile force that is preparing to attack. When outnumbered the best defense is a great offense. The more people in your group the more people to perform needed work and also the more people to defend you site. In every group you will hopefully have at least one individual that is trained and capable of taking the fight to the enemy in the intention of preventing a battle that even if you win will damage/destroy equipment, foodstocks, etc. that are vital to your groups survival. Always keep your options open, know who in your group will lead in peace and who will lead in conflict. Hesitation in either can be the death of you group.


----------

