SHTF has happen and hungry people are coming around.What would you do and why?

[Taz Baby]

This is a question I we all should ask ourself. When SHTF happens and it seems to be calming down some, If people came around Hungry, dirty, tattered and beat looking. They don't look like they mean to harm you. They might have kids, what would you do?

We have gone over this question time and time again in different scenarios, and it is a very hard one to answer. It really all depends on the situation but you still have to make a list of things to look for in them. Some of the things I would look for is, How they act when they approach you, are they angry, violent, threatening, or are they just wanting help? How would you determine on what you would do if this happened? Would you go with your instinct, gut feelings, emotions, or just think everyone at this time is out to harm you? If you took them in, would you make them work before they got to eat, bath, got clean clothes? Would you have a place where only the outsiders can stay away from your main camp?

I think I would have a place where the outsiders can stay away from my group until they can prove their self. They would be under guard at all times, not allowed any weapons, if they had any I would take them away. Have to work before eating. It would be hard to look at the kids and not feel heartbroken but you can't let your heart lead you in this instance. Have you thought about this and have you made a plan on how to handle this?

[helomech]

I am hoping my isolation would lead to very few if any encounters. People that have lived in this (very small town) for decades have no idea there is a house on this property. Heck even the sheriffs office had no idea where my house was when I called them once, and the 911 address did no good to help them find me, had to give them directions. But I will not be handing out anything, it just opens a door to things I don't want to deal with. In a true SHTF situation my property will be littered with booby traps, so unless someone knows where they are I doubt people will be making it past them.

[Possom]

This would be a situational decision for me. Depends on who it is and whether I know them or not. I live outside a very small town as well. If things get really bad I will fall trees across the county roads to block vehicle traffic close to our land. So the only people coming in will be on foot unless they come through our fields and locked gates.

If it is a neighbor that I know I will visit with them and possibly help if I can. Again depending on which neighbor. If it is someone I don't know and they are on my land they will be treated as hostile immediately. It is better to not take chances with people. If they turn out to be simply looking for help I will send them towards town with a stern warning not to come back. If they are up to no good or act shady they will leave my place in a hurry or they will never leave at all.

[David Armstrong]

2 comments. One, I'm very much against dropping trees and such across an open access public road. I'm not sure anyone has the right to do that. Heck, I might be just up the road a bit and am counting on using that road to get me places I need to go and for my friends to get to my location. I'm not against controlling access to areas, particularly your own property, but arbitrarily deciding to take public property that others might need out of use for personal reasons seems sort of questionable.

Two, my people have had this discussion and are pretty well set. Everybody gets sent on, but kids get one decent meal before they go. Adults are on their own. Of course that is dependent on attitudes and behaviors of the adults. If there are problems or threats or arguments we'll close up and send everyone on their way.

[Possom]

2 comments. One, I'm very much against dropping trees and such across an open access public road. I'm not sure anyone has the right to do that. Heck, I might be just up the road a bit and am counting on using that road to get me places I need to go and for my friends to get to my location. I'm not against controlling access to areas, particularly your own property, but arbitrarily deciding to take public property that others might need out of use for personal reasons seems sort of questionable.

Two, my people have had this discussion and are pretty well set. Everybody gets sent on, but kids get one decent meal before they go. Adults are on their own. Of course that is dependent on attitudes and behaviors of the adults. If there are problems or threats or arguments we'll close up and send everyone on their way.

I own the property on both sides of the road. Road connects to highways on both ends. Technically speaking the property the road is on belongs to me. County simply has an imminent domain right of way on it. I wouldn't block other people in, that would just make it where I had to deal with them.

During a serious shtf situation I could care less what people call "questionable". They can take it up with the sheriffs office and work it out. They can scream "that's public property" all they want. My land deeds say otherwise.

If you want to keep "public access" open for people to drive to your house that's your call. Mine will get blocked at both ends of my property lines. Only way in and out will be through my locked pipe gates.

[ElevenBravo]

Right now, this second... Ive not enough to sustain myself & fam, so I wont be answering the door.

Being broke = no extra money for preps, no matter how bad you want to build your bank.

I work 53 hours a week and health insurance premiums takes 1/3 of my take home pay (and I suspect O'care will only make it worse...), which leaves me with not much. I refuse to stoop to underhanded or illegal methods to make extra money, so if my morals & ethics mean I will suffer more during SHTF, so be it.

In an ideal situation, Id be part of a group (MAG if it were), and I would have preps for me & fam for min 1 year stocked, and the moment SHTF presented it's self, it would be off and away in the K5.

So, I do what I can with what I have and live day to day to make the best out of what I have.

EB

[bacpacker]

I have considered this at some depth. For starters, where I'm at is not nearly as secure as I would like. I would have gotten with my closest neighbors and had security running if needed. If it comes to food issues, I will already know who has needs and what they are. I will consider helping where I can, but if it comes down to it, we don't have enough to last us that long. Being able to grow food, I will be helping out the very closet locals to some degree in exchange for their labor in helping work the land and protecting it. Outsiders need not apply. There are a few folks I would allow in and they all know who they are and what would be expected of them.
As far as blocking the roads, if the situation calls for it I would be all for it. There are multiple routes on past our AO, so our blocking a road would only be a slight inconveinance. Any blockage can be moved if need be, trucks, tractors, dozers, backhoe, horses are all capable of moving logs out of the way. Or dead autos for that matter.

[AlphaTea]

This is a question I we all should ask ourself. When SHTF happens and it seems to be calming down some, If people came around Hungry, dirty, tattered and beat looking. They don't look like they mean to harm you. They might have kids, what would you do?

If it SEEMS to be calming down I will still be on guard untill I see ammo being sold in Walmart again..,wait, what?
anyway,
I plan on looking more hungry, being dirtier looking and more tattered. If someone comes asking I will be sure to ask them BEFORE they ask me for something. The more destitute and needy I seem, the less likely they will hang around or tell anyone else about meeting me. Blend in.
Nothing to see here, nothing to get here, move along.

[bacpacker]

Alpha that sounds like the best plan yet!

[Sniper-T]

It would be a case by case thing for me, and the main question would be what they did for a living. their answer would weigh enough to either go, or get another question.

If I could determine that they would be a useful addition to my group, that they are willing to prove by working they may have a possibility of a free meal. I am very cautious about who I MAY allow into my inner sanctum, so unless I can use them to suit MY needs... see ya later.

If these are people were transients, just looking for a meal to move on... see ya. Given that I do have a good water supply, that would be all I would offer. and begrudgingly so as to not tip my hand.

children don't tug at my heart strings, I chose not to have them for a reason. I don't like them. Go eat some dirt!

Sound harsh, yeah, maybe. But I'm not a prepper because I want to save the human race, it is because I want to survive with my loved ones and friends.

[ElevenBravo]

Liar Liar Pants On Fire...

Asking people what job they had, what skills they have mastered and what there criminal past is like, you might as well be reading a fairy tale.

And were not even talking after SHTF, were talking TODAY!

EB

[Sniper-T]

Of course you are correct EB, but some things cannot be faked, not when you're standing on the road.

Oh you're a dentist you say... name all the teeth in a human mouth? I may not be able to recite them but I am a crossword freak and would recognize them to hear them.

Oh you're a doctor, starting at the toes, name the bones and muscles. I may not remember all of them either, but I still have my anatomy and physiology books from college. Plus my wife does quality assurance for all the labs in our province, as well as being a lab tech for 20+ years. and she is a personal trainer.

etc. Remember, the first answer, if acceptable, allows them nothing more at this point but another question.

Generally, I've found that the more a bullshitter talks, the easier it is to trip them up in their lies.

And of course there is always the old adage, 'fool me once shame on me, fool me twice and I'll bury you'

T

[Stormfeather]

Our BOL is far enough off the beaten track ( ask MsOmnipotent, her & hubby went there shooting!) that we wont be having many people walking thru the AO. Those that are in that area are already well known and self sufficient already. (Farmers). If one of them needs helps, then yes, of course we will help. But that being said, we also know who they are by having already interacted with them! So if its a stranger, then a "no contact/observe only" order is in effect.

[David Armstrong]

I own the property on both sides of the road. Road connects to highways on both ends. Technically speaking the property the road is on belongs to me. County simply has an imminent domain right of way on it. I wouldn't block other people in, that would just make it where I had to deal with them.

During a serious shtf situation I could care less what people call "questionable". They can take it up with the sheriffs office and work it out. They can scream "that's public property" all they want. My land deeds say otherwise.

If you want to keep "public access" open for people to drive to your house that's your call. Mine will get blocked at both ends of my property lines. Only way in and out will be through my locked pipe gates.
Actually if the county has a right of way eminent domain claim they own the property until they relinquish the claim. My point is simple. When one tries to do something that endangers others, particularly when those action are legally questionable, one increases the chances of conflict and hostility. If we have reached the point that you are blocking a public road do you really think that other folks will go and discuss it with the sheriff and "work it out" or will they be likely to take matters into their own hands, just as you have done? Closing off your own property with gates is one thing, dropping trees across county roads is something completely different.

[Possom]

Actually if the county has a right of way eminent domain claim they own the property until they relinquish the claim. My point is simple. When one tries to do something that endangers others, particularly when those action are legally questionable, one increases the chances of conflict and hostility. If we have reached the point that you are blocking a public road do you really think that other folks will go and discuss it with the sheriff and "work it out" or will they be likely to take matters into their own hands, just as you have done? Closing off your own property with gates is one thing, dropping trees across county roads is something completely different.

And how would I be endangering others? I would not be land locking anyone in. I would only be stopping the traffic through my property. Up until the mid 80s there was cattle guards on each end of our property across the county road with cattle running freely across the road way. There are still a few places in my county that do this.

Without getting too deeply into the right of the individual versus the right of the public I will simply say this. It is my view that what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.

If all hell has broken loose I could care less about the right of the public when it comes to my property and livelihood. There would be no reason for people to come through my property in a shtf situation. If I fall a trees across the road or park my bulldozer in the middle of the road restricting access it is the same difference. I can open it back up as easily as I closed it. If they choose to "take matters into their own hands" I will put a stop to it. I don't play around with people and most around here know that already.

The point would be to stop vehicle access to my barns and house. When people get hungry they will steal livestock if given the opportunity. I will reduce that opportunity. Let them go to a softer target in search food.

[helomech]

And how would I be endangering others? I would not be land locking anyone in. I would only be stopping the traffic through my property. Up until the mid 80s there was cattle guards on each end of our property across the county road with cattle running freely across the road way. There are still a few places in my county that do this.

Without getting too deeply into the right of the individual versus the right of the public I will simply say this. It is my view that what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.

If all hell has broken loose I could care less about the right of the public when it comes to my property and livelihood. There would be no reason for people to come through my property in a shtf situation. If I fall a trees across the road or park my bulldozer in the middle of the road restricting access it is the same difference. I can open it back up as easily as I closed it. If they choose to "take matters into their own hands" I will put a stop to it. I don't play around with people and most around here know that already.

The point would be to stop vehicle access to my barns and house. When people get hungry they will steal livestock if given the opportunity. I will reduce that opportunity. Let them go to a softer target in search food.

I agree, I will be dropping many trees on my road. IMO it stops being a county road when the county stops taking care of it. In a shtf situation there are only two of us that live on that road, and my neighbor is fine with my plans. Screw public access at this point. And anyone that thinks people will be driving around in a real shft situation are sadly mistaken. You will be stuck where you are unless you start walking.

[bacpacker]

I agree with Possums statement "anything that gets blocked can be cleared" if there is a reason to. If it comes to blocking roads,IMO, the county is not likely to be showing up to ask questions in the first place. Plans on blocking our road will only affect a very few and can be worked out easily enogh.

[David Armstrong]

And how would I be endangering others? I would not be land locking anyone in. I would only be stopping the traffic through my property. Up until the mid 80s there was cattle guards on each end of our property across the county road with cattle running freely across the road way. There are still a few places in my county that do this.
I don't know if you would or how you would, I am not there. I do know that your statement was that you will fall trees across the county roads to block vehicle traffic close to our land. Now to me that says you will block county roads that are close to your land. I find such actions questionable on many fronts. Now you are saying you would only block traffic through your property. That maybe a very different thing.


Without getting too deeply into the right of the individual versus the right of the public I will simply say this. It is my view that what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.
County roads belong to all.


If all hell has broken loose I could care less about the right of the public when it comes to my property and livelihood. There would be no reason for people to come through my property in a shtf situation. If I fall a trees across the road or park my bulldozer in the middle of the road restricting access it is the same difference. I can open it back up as easily as I closed it. If they choose to "take matters into their own hands" I will put a stop to it. I don't play around with people and most around here know that already.
So if I want to travel on a public road, and choose to remove your tree with my chainsaw, you would stop me? I'm not sure what legal doctrine you would have to do so other than "might makes right", in which case nobody has any right to any property they cannot fight to keep.


The point would be to stop vehicle access to my barns and house. When people get hungry they will steal livestock if given the opportunity. I will reduce that opportunity. Let them go to a softer target in search food.
The point for me is that respect for property goes both ways. If you don't respect my right to travel freely on a public road, why should I respect your right to your barn or livestock? I'm not sure why you should be allowed to make your ability to survive SHTF greater by reducing my ability. Should all of your neighbors be allowed to block the public roads close to them so that you cannot get out or get in to your property?

Again, I can't address your particular situation, I'm looking at the issue in abstract.

[David Armstrong]

I agree, I will be dropping many trees on my road. IMO it stops being a county road when the county stops taking care of it. In a shtf situation there are only two of us that live on that road, and my neighbor is fine with my plans. Screw public access at this point. And anyone that thinks people will be driving around in a real shft situation are sadly mistaken. You will be stuck where you are unless you start walking.
So how long a time has to pass for that? If the county doesn't take care if it for a month? Two months? Six months? The county hasn't taken care of my road for over a year (budget issues) but I assure you it is still a county road. As for driving around, there have been plenty of SHTF situations around the world in the past and plenty of people have been driving around during them. Even in a total shutdown there is no reason not to have motorized vehicles running around for a couple of years without much trouble.

[David Armstrong]

I agree with Possums statement "anything that gets blocked can be cleared" if there is a reason to. If it comes to blocking roads,IMO, the county is not likely to be showing up to ask questions in the first place. Plans on blocking our road will only affect a very few and can be worked out easily enogh.
Sure, anything can be cleared. But that only poses the question that if I decide to clear a road you have illegally blocked will you fight to keep it closed? Why does there have to be a reason other than "you don't have the right to block a public road"? I don't know if the county is going to show up, but there certainly is a chance that somebody will show up. Folks keep trying to reason away "it's OK for me because....." which to me avoids the issue. Is it OK for a private person to block a public road for their own personal reasons without concern for others? That is what it amounts too. If it is OK for you to block your public road because it improves your safety is it OK for me to block a state highway, or an interstate, because I think it will make me safer? And if it is OK to block it and use force to defend the blockage is it OK to use force to unblock it? To me it is more of a macro issue than a micro question.

[Sniper-T]

wow. interesting conversation. I would expect most of my neighbours to succumb or leave rather early, with the exception of a couple key to me. I could easily 'block' my road(s) in an afternoon that it would take heavy equipment a week to redo, but I don't think that would be a meaningful use of my resourses. I would prefer to 'warn' people off in a non violent, yet threatening enough manner, that the road more often taken is the better choice. I live at the end of two dead end roads, and there is no reason for anyoneto come down them unless they are coming to see me or my neighbours, or passing through. If they are passing through, they can make a detour a mile back on either road, and bypass my corner without any extra undue hardship. So without actually blocking the road, I would firmly steer them around my little corner of the world.

[Taz Baby]

very interesting but remember this question was in a shtf situation, with that in mind I really don't think the laws will be being enforced in most area's as blocked roads. I will protect mine the best way I can in a shtf situation. All laws will not apply. When it becomes a town or community again then the laws will matter but not when people are coming to my place, if they make it, in a shtf time zone. The only laws in my book that will matter are the ones we think is right.

[Sniper-T]

^
that!
:)

[David Armstrong]

very interesting but remember this question was in a shtf situation, with that in mind I really don't think the laws will be being enforced in most area's as blocked roads. I will protect mine the best way I can in a shtf situation. All laws will not apply. When it becomes a town or community again then the laws will matter but not when people are coming to my place, if they make it, in a shtf time zone. The only laws in my book that will matter are the ones we think is right.
If I follow your reasoning then, it is right for a group of people to overpower you and yours and take all of your supplies if they want to, as long as they are able to do so? I realize things can be done based simply on who is the strongest, but I'm not sure that it should be considered the right thing to do. I've been in places where anarchy was the rule of the day and it is not a good way to live.

[bacpacker]

Taz you got it right. If bad times come like that, it gonna be up to each of us to take care of whats our's. Whether that means your personal stuff or your communities stuff. And that has been my exact point. Those will be different times without a doubt. What takes place in my general area will be done as a decision overall on what is best for us to survive. If it inconveineces someone, well it just does. Much better than being raided or killed IMO.
I fully assume things will change as time goes on, probably starting slowly and ramping up for a while. And then slow back down after some point. We will have to adjust as time progresses to keep up with what works best at that time. Fluid situation for sure.

[Taz Baby]

If I follow your reasoning then, it is right for a group of people to overpower you and yours and take all of your supplies if they want to, as long as they are able to do so?

I don't see how you get to that reasoning from what I said, Can you explain it better please. In a shtf time zone, what ever the laws were, would not apply as far as I am concerned. We, as a group, have shtf rules, and those would apply in that time zone. We do not plan on being overpowered, but if that happened, it wouldn't matter because we all would be dead.

[David Armstrong]

I think it is pretty self explanatory. Your argument is that "The only laws in my book that will matter are the ones we think is right." If that is the case then there are no laws, there is simply anarchy and might makes right. Thus if it is OK for you to base decisions on what you think is right for you at that time it should be OK for others to base decisions on what they think is right for them at that time. If I'm not understanding you correctly my apologies, and please clarify. As for plans there is a lot of truth to the cliche about "best layed plans...."

I think anyone has the right to protect what is theirs. I doubt anyone has the right to create difficulties and harm for others by taking what is not theirs. Public properties belong to all and no individual has the right to deprive others of them. They may have the ability, they don't have the right.

[Taz Baby]

sorry david I clicked the wrong one on that. I didn't mean to dislike your post, I meant to like it.

[David Armstrong]

sorry david I clicked the wrong one on that. I didn't mean to dislike your post, I meant to like it.
LOL! No problem, it's the internet. Hard for me to get to worked up about it. But thanks!

[Taz Baby]

I think it is pretty self explanatory. Your argument is that "The only laws in my book that will matter are the ones we think is right."
David, First of all I do not argue,There is no point to that. Second: I did not say anywhere in that statement that my rules were the only rules. What I did say was yes they only rules that would matter are the ones we think are right, meaning right for us, our group and in a shtf situation that is what matters. Everyone will have there way of keeping them and theirs safe. Everyone in this world has the right to make any choice they choose to. What I think is wrong might be something someone else thinks is right, so be it. I do not worry about other people, I worry about if I am do right by me. But this is not about life as we know it now. It is about in a SHTF time zone. So if we can please keep this on that subject, and not go off it that would be nice. Thank you David for your opinion and I do appreciate your thoughts on this subject.

[helomech]

Anyone that has tried to drive through a war zone, a evacuation or anything similar will know that travel just does not really happen. Heck I spent many hours evacuating south Louisiana on many occasions with roads at a stand still in every direction. And that is just one city. If something happened that caused a true nation wide SHTF situation there would no no riding around anywhere. If you think you will jump in your vehicle and drive somewhere you might want to re think your plans. If vehicle travel is necessary you are in trouble.

[Stormfeather]

I agree with Helomech here, having been in some crappy situations where evac was necessary, that doesnt mean that it was possible.

@ DAVID ARMSTRONG- Now, that being said, I understand what folks are talking about, and I also understand each side that each group is putting forth. So in the interest of fairness, I have to say, I will be like many others here. I will be blocking roads. BUT. . allow me to expound a little bit more in-depth so you can possibly get a reason or understanding why I will be doing what I do.


1- theres one road in, and one road out of my area that Im going to. The ones who live there, have the ability to bypass the hardball merely by travelling by vehicle thru THEIR property to reach the hardball farther down the line. So, if a person is travelling on the hardball and reach the barricade, then they most certainly are one of three groups.
.
.
.

they know someone in that area, and are bugging out planning to reach the people they know. .
They got lost, in which case, theres nothing to be gained for them to continue travel down that road since it dead ends on our joined property.
They are there looking to either cause harm or destruction because if they know about the road, know that people live down there, and then they know its a dead end. The county even posts a sign where the road links into the county highway saying its a dead end. So there is no reason for them to travel down that road unless they are one of three groups.


2- When or if that SHTF moment arrives, and it all goes to hell, the idea that morals values and standards that apply today for all people, will still be in place, simply isnt true. We dont go raising hell, burning down houses, raping women, stealing supplies now, because there are repercussions to those actions. If there is no reason to be worried about the law, because there is nobody to enforce those laws, then why would/should people follow the law? Because we are all good at heart? Because its the "right thing to do"? No, it wont be like that. People will be desperate, people will be angry, mad, hungry, scared, frightened, starving or whatever adjective you want to insert here, but people will be that way. If you have food, and they know you have food, and they havent eaten in a week, guess where they are going to go? Where the food is. They have no reason to follow the letter of the law, if there is nobody to stop them from taking what you so thoughtfully planned and prepared ahead of time for, where they didnt, then yes, they are going to make attempts to get it.

3- Its up to me to protect me and mine, I cant do that alone. I know that, I recognize it, that is why we as a group plan for it. that being said, my friends and I devised this plan after talking to the neighbors about it. They are the ones who informed us about their ability to get to the hardball thru their property, so closing the pass would probably be the best idea. Its not a perfect plan, but its the best we can do to ensure our own personal security and safety in the meantime. so its what we agreed upon. Sure, if people are nice to each other, and things dont get out of hand, we wont resort to extreme measures, but if they do, extreme measures are required to ensure our survivability, and thats what we will do.

[bacpacker]

Well said Stormy.

[eagle326]

Have been watching this thread; Stormy's post is a well thought out example of a situation for shtf. And I'll bet everything I own that Storm and his people have listening post ;scouts ; patrols and observation post along with other warning devices. It's my estimation that Storm will know of their presence before they know that their being watched.
In this way they will have a very good idea as to those peoples intentions. And if an approach of the people is necessary Storm will of already set up a perimeter of cover by his people before any contact is made. Contact will be made in such a way as not to inflame hostilities ; but to figure out their agenda whether it be passing through or looking for help ;food ; medical or barter. Only then will any decisions be made and if they need to pass then I'm sure they'll be escorted out of the area and an unknown spotter/scout will keep an eye on them until out of zone.

If they're the worst case then I'm sure that plan is also covered and one that even Storm doesn't want to happen ; yet during shtf a lot of people will become wanton and vicious animals. And this is where you hope for the best but plan for the worst. None of us here are beyond helping people but safety and survival of our own through our prepping is first and foremost the standing order everyday.
If a true shtf in our time then most laws are gone and it's survival time. The best we can do is to try and live by a moral code while trying to ensure our survival.
So whether it's blocking a road ; body of water ; bridge ; food it's all the same in the end. The blockage can always be moved and replaced as long as you have watchers and comms. with base. But safety is first and paramount to everything else.

[David Armstrong]

David, First of all I do not argue,There is no point to that.
One can have an argument without arguing. ARGUMENT: a discussion involving differing points of view; debate.

Second: I did not say anywhere in that statement that my rules were the only rules. What I did say was yes they only rules that would matter are the ones we think are right, meaning right for us, our group and in a shtf situation that is what matters. Everyone will have there way of keeping them and theirs safe. Everyone in this world has the right to make any choice they choose to. What I think is wrong might be something someone else thinks is right, so be it. I do not worry about other people, I worry about if I am do right by me. But this is not about life as we know it now. It is about in a SHTF time zone. So if we can please keep this on that subject, and not go off it that would be nice. Thank you David for your opinion and I do appreciate your thoughts on this subject.
I think that is on the subject. During a SHTF situation does one person/group have the right to do things that help them if it creates problems for other persons/groups? Is there any need for maintaining a sense of moral and ethical behavior and respect for the rights of others during SHTF or is the only thing of importance the survival of me and mine at all costs? That is what the discussion amounts to as I see it. Is it right for me to take what belongs to everyonel so that my safety and security is enhanced?

[David Armstrong]

Anyone that has tried to drive through a war zone, a evacuation or anything similar will know that travel just does not really happen. Heck I spent many hours evacuating south Louisiana on many occasions with roads at a stand still in every direction. And that is just one city. If something happened that caused a true nation wide SHTF situation there would no no riding around anywhere. If you think you will jump in your vehicle and drive somewhere you might want to re think your plans. If vehicle travel is necessary you are in trouble.
Limited experience does not translate to broad areas. Beirut certainly was a SHTF time, yet plenty of traffic went on. Bosnia similarly. Somalia, Chad, Congo, and on and on. In fact it is hard to think of a modern social collapse where there was not transportation available. An evacuation is a different thing, and even during the evacuations for Katrina and Rita folks thta knew their way around were motoring away with little difficulty. I find it hard to imagine a scenario where every road everywhere will be unusable, and there will be no vehicles. But if that is the case then the whole argument about needing to block a road is moot, wouldn't you think??

[David Armstrong]

. I will be blocking roads. BUT. . allow me to expound a little bit more in-depth so you can possibly get a reason or understanding why I will be doing what I do.
I understand the reasoning, I simply disagree with it on a macro level. Heck, on a micro level I can make a decent case for blowing the bridges on Interstate 10 to make me and mine safer. On a macro level I don't think that is right.

The county even posts a sign where the road links into the county highway saying its a dead end. So there is no reason for them to travel down that road unless they are one of three groups.
Does one have to have a reason to exercise a right to travel in public places? Maybe they theink there is perfectly good reason. Heck, I lived on a dead-end road when I was younger, lots of folks felt they had some need to go down it. We might not have agreed but they apparently had a reason.

When or if that SHTF moment arrives, and it all goes to hell, the idea that morals values and standards that apply today for all people, will still be in place, simply isnt true. We dont go raising hell, burning down houses, raping women, stealing supplies now, because there are repercussions to those actions. If there is no reason to be worried about the law, because there is nobody to enforce those laws, then why would/should people follow the law? Because we are all good at heart? Because its the "right thing to do"? No, it wont be like that. People will be desperate, people will be angry, mad, hungry, scared, frightened, starving or whatever adjective you want to insert here, but people will be that way. If you have food, and they know you have food, and they havent eaten in a week, guess where they are going to go? Where the food is. They have no reason to follow the letter of the law, if there is nobody to stop them from taking what you so thoughtfully planned and prepared ahead of time for, where they didnt, then yes, they are going to make attempts to get it.
So it is OK in a SHTF situation to rape, murder rob, steal? The only reason you are honest and good today is that you are afraid of getting caught and being punished?? I doubt that. I've read your posts and got some idea how you thinnk and you seem to be a good person. I doubt thta SHTF would make you suddenly become a violent terrorizing rapist running around the country taking everything from others simply because you could.


Its up to me to protect me and mine, I cant do that alone. I know that, I recognize it, that is why we as a group plan for it. that being said, my friends and I devised this plan after talking to the neighbors about it. They are the ones who informed us about their ability to get to the hardball thru their property, so closing the pass would probably be the best idea. Its not a perfect plan, but its the best we can do to ensure our own personal security and safety in the meantime. so its what we agreed upon. Sure, if people are nice to each other, and things dont get out of hand, we wont resort to extreme measures, but if they do, extreme measures are required to ensure our survivability, and thats what we will do.
I have no disagreement with anyone doing pretty much whatever they want to do to provide for safety and security on their own property. It is when one starts doing things to the property of others that I take issue. Let me ask a question to all the road blockers out there: putting aside your particular situation, if you think it is OK to block public roads to improve your safety, would you consider it OK if other neighbors around you blocked off your ability to move so their safety would be improved?

- - - Updated - - -


So whether it's blocking a road ; body of water ; bridge ; food it's all the same in the end. The blockage can always be moved and replaced as long as you have watchers and comms. with base. But safety is first and paramount to everything else.
I don't have much problem with that. If one wants to set up a method to control and restrict passage through a manned checkpoint that is understandable. But to me that is far different than dropping trees across the road.

[izzyscout21]

I don't have much problem with that. If one wants to set up a method to control and restrict passage through a manned checkpoint that is understandable. But to me that is far different than dropping trees across the road.

I don't see how dropping a tree is any different than Hesco barriers, concertina, or road cones. It's all controlled access.

The only difference between a tree and a traffic control point is you don't have to man a tree. Any obstacle you emplace, being manned or unmanned, the endgame is still the same: You still maintain control over what passes through.

This isn't a discussion about morality. It's not about rape, pillage, and plunder. Unless the Russians invade, I doubt somebody is going to blow the bridges. This thread is about maintaining the safety and security of your group/ family by restricting vehicle and or pedestrian access.

Road barricades give you the ability to have as little or as much standoff distance as you warrant, enabling you to give your best threat assessment before you get to the engagement stage.

If I were Helo or Possum or Stormy, I'd do the same thing. I'll barricade the piss out of the entrance to our BOL. Others don't have a reason to be there.

Unless I smoke crack like a Toronto mayor, I'm pretty sure Taz laid out a SHTF situation of epic proportions. Given the constraints of the scenario, I think access restriction is valid and if by some reason you've reached this level of flying fecal matter, I'm sure authorities are going to have much bigger fish to fry than the legalities of property rights and felled lumber. In this instance, I agree with Possum, Helo, Stormy, and everyone else that has echoed these sentiments.

On the other hand, the situation is more realistic (tornado, flood, hurricane, etc) there's no reason to go to these extremes, so I agree with David in part. In all but the most extreme, dire circumstances, this will probably cause more trouble than you anticipate.

Not everything is black and white, and sometimes, for better or worse, you have to make a judgement call and live with the repercussions.

[Possom]

Couldn't have said it better izzy. I am not one to over react or look to cause trouble. Something as simple as a week or two black out from an ice storm or tornado coming through the area of course I'm not going to block the roads and set guards.

However, in the event of total collapse via the economy or outside attack things will quickly slide into chaos. Rule of law will be hard to enforce. I will block access to my property the best I can. We have a rather severe drug problem here in the form of pill heads. You want to see people go crazy cut them off of pain pills.

I used to think people were inherently good and decent. Then I seen how people act when the rule of law is no longer strictly enforced. It's not a pretty picture. I will do what I need to in order to protect my family.

[bacpacker]

Pill heads=No better than the Meth heads down our road, plus illegals in the AO. If things go down hill in a major way, no way they are gonna be allowed to flourish/run wild at the neighborhoods expense.

[eagle326]

Quote Originally Posted by eagle326 View Post
So whether it's blocking a road ; body of water ; bridge ; food it's all the same in the end. The blockage can always be moved and replaced as long as you have watchers and comms. with base. But safety is first and paramount to everything else.


Let me try to clarify this part of my post. It is in part of my statement of Stormy's having warnings and lookouts to keep an eye on the blocked road. Didn't mean for it to come across as a manned post.
I was trying to convey the point that Stormy would have a way to watch his blockage and people approaching it in order to figure out their intentions by watching and listening to them when they got to blockage. That's why I said watchers or lookouts with comms. back to base to keep everyone updated.

[helomech]

On the other hand, the situation is more realistic (tornado, flood, hurricane, etc) there's no reason to go to these extremes, so I agree with David in part. In all but the most extreme, dire circumstances, this will probably cause more trouble than you anticipate.

Not everything is black and white, and sometimes, for better or worse, you have to make a judgement call and live with the repercussions.

Exactly Izzy, no way I would even consider blocking a road when public works are still up and running. The only way I would do it, is if I thought it was the only way to keep my family alive. Then all bets are off.

[izzyscout21]

Exactly Izzy, no way I would even consider blocking a road when public works are still up and running. The only way I would do it, is if I thought it was the only way to keep my family alive. Then all bets are off.

I was pretty sure that was what you meant.

[David Armstrong]

I don't see how dropping a tree is any different than Hesco barriers, concertina, or road cones. It's all controlled access.
I'd disagree in part. Yes, all are designed to control access. Some are designed to control by denying, some are designed to control through suggestion (a traffic cone really doesn't do much) and so on. Some barriers are designed to be moved, others are not. For example, one can jump into a truck, start it up and get it out of the way. A felled tree, on the other hand, requires EACH tree to be hooked up to something then moved, then the next, and so on.


The only difference between a tree and a traffic control point is you don't have to man a tree. Any obstacle you emplace, being manned or unmanned, the endgame is still the same: You still maintain control over what passes through.
Again, I disagree. There is a difference between control and deny. You don't deny passage with an unmanned traffic cone. Of course that also gets into the question of if one has the right to deny freedom of passage on a public roadway.


This isn't a discussion about morality. It's not about rape, pillage, and plunder. Unless the Russians invade, I doubt somebody is going to blow the bridges. This thread is about maintaining the safety and security of your group/ family by restricting vehicle and or pedestrian access.
Of course it is a discussion about morality. That is in part the premise behind the title, IMO: what do you do but also why do you do it? Is it morally acceptable to deny food to those who are starving? Is it morally acceptable to deny shelter and protection to the helpless. Does the Golden Rule become less golden during SHTF?


Road barricades give you the ability to have as little or as much standoff distance as you warrant, enabling you to give your best threat assessment before you get to the engagement stage.
No denying that. Again, is it right for you to enhance your safety and security at the expense of perhaps reducing the safety and security of others just because you are stronger? That is a basic issue to em and mine. Is it OK for my group to over run your group and take all your food and suppllies because we are stronger and need it to survive? How does that differ from taking away your right to travel in public because I think I need to do that to survive?


If I were Helo or Possum or Stormy, I'd do the same thing. I'll barricade the piss out of the entrance to our BOL. Others don't have a reason to be there.
Again, no problem with barricading the entrance to YOUR BOL. The issue is barricading something that is not yours.


Unless I smoke crack like a Toronto mayor, I'm pretty sure Taz laid out a SHTF situation of epic proportions. Given the constraints of the scenario, I think access restriction is valid and if by some reason you've reached this level of flying fecal matter, I'm sure authorities are going to have much bigger fish to fry than the legalities of property rights and felled lumber. In this instance, I agree with Possum, Helo, Stormy, and everyone else that has echoed these sentiments.
So it is OK for me to blow the main bridges on Interstate 10 to improve my security, even though it would probably decrease the chance of survival for others? Sorry, I just don't see that.


On the other hand, the situation is more realistic (tornado, flood, hurricane, etc) there's no reason to go to these extremes, so I agree with David in part. In all but the most extreme, dire circumstances, this will probably cause more trouble than you anticipate.

Not everything is black and white, and sometimes, for better or worse, you have to make a judgement call and live with the repercussions.
That is certainly a big part of it for me. You can (and I think will) alienate others by blocking roads. Equally important by trying to block a road you also send a message that there is something down this road that is valuable. Toss the "is it right to do" issue on top of the mix and I see nothing but trouble.

[izzyscout21]

I'd disagree in part. Yes, all are designed to control access. Some are designed to control by denying, some are designed to control through suggestion (a traffic cone really doesn't do much) and so on. Some barriers are designed to be moved, others are not. For example, one can jump into a truck, start it up and get it out of the way. A felled tree, on the other hand, requires EACH tree to be hooked up to something then moved, then the next, and so on.


Again, I disagree. There is a difference between control and deny. You don't deny passage with an unmanned traffic cone. Of course that also gets into the question of if one has the right to deny freedom of passage on a public roadway.

Control is a form of denial. There is no difference.


Of course it is a discussion about morality. That is in part the premise behind the title, IMO: what do you do but also why do you do it? Is it morally acceptable to deny food to those who are starving? Is it morally acceptable to deny shelter and protection to the helpless. Does the Golden Rule become less golden during SHTF?

David, some things go out the window. Are you telling me that you are willing to sacrifice the safety and well being of your family by giving out your food and allowing strange people to pass through your immediate area? I highly doubt that you are going to take food from the mouths of your kids, or spouse, or other family members. I'm also fairly confident that you're not going to invite the people into your home. That compromises you and yours. Not only is this unwise, but it puts everyone you care about at risk.

As a father, my children come first. I will not compromise their safety. That is my responsibility, and any action that puts them at risk is grossly negligent and irresponsible.


No denying that. Again, is it right for you to enhance your safety and security at the expense of perhaps reducing the safety and security of others just because you are stronger? That is a basic issue to em and mine. Is it OK for my group to over run your group and take all your food and suppllies because we are stronger and need it to survive? How does that differ from taking away your right to travel in public because I think I need to do that to survive?

It has absolutely nothing to do with me being stronger. And I'm fairly sure that nobody here is advocating taking advantage of any other group. Most of us in the prepping community have no illusions about the severity of the situation bringing about those events. Thats why we prepare and preach self reliance. I (and most of us) do not have the ability to be giving our preps away. It doesn't mean that I don't feel compassion for these people, because I will. It simply means that I am not in a position to help.






So it is OK for me to blow the main bridges on Interstate 10 to improve my security, even though it would probably decrease the chance of survival for others? Sorry, I just don't see that.

You're the one who is stuck on the bridges.


That is certainly a big part of it for me. You can (and I think will) alienate others by blocking roads. Equally important by trying to block a road you also send a message that there is something down this road that is valuable. Toss the "is it right to do" issue on top of the mix and I see nothing but trouble.

In this situation, you're already alienated. Both you and them. It's not going to kill somebody to backtrack a few hundred meters or a mile and go around.

As I said before, this is an extreme circumstance. As I said before, in such a large prolonged event do you honestly think that legalities the determining factor? There is a difference between morality and legality. Yes, sometimes the align and coincide, but there is a difference. Some things are constant.

Example: Murder, Rape, Looting, Assault.....these are both illegal and immoral. If SHTF, the morality of these issues dont really change. Whether you're Athiest, Buddhist, Agnostic, Christian, or just consider yourself to be a good person, most folks are going to agree these are wrong.

Dropping some trees on the road in front of your house? really? that's not even in the same stadium.

[izzyscout21]

In the end, you protect your family's static position the best way you see fit, and I will mine. BUt in the end, I'm of the opinion that area denial is a viable option. Because you know what? I don't want to shoot somebody that shows up just wanting food and they happened to wander up.

That can create a no-win situation for both of us. For the sake of my morality, I'd prefer to address the situation before its given the chance to escalate. I think that a fairly moral decision on my part.

[David Armstrong]

Control is a form of denial. There is no difference.
Sure there is unless one really wants to play semantics and parse words. Thta is why the term is "controlled access highways" for example. Denial means nobody gets in. Control means entrance is monitored and held to certain standards. When you go to a gun show entry is controlled, not denied, for instance. Again, if you want to have a controlled entrance process I don't see a problem. Dropping trees and such across the road is not controlling entrance and passage it is denying it.


David, some things go out the window.
Sure. The question is WHAT things go out the window.

Are you telling me that you are willing to sacrifice the safety and well being of your family by giving out your food and allowing strange people to pass through your immediate area? I highly doubt that you are going to take food from the mouths of your kids, or spouse, or other family members. I'm also fairly confident that you're not going to invite the people into your home. That compromises you and yours. Not only is this unwise, but it puts everyone you care about at risk.
Again, in case it was not clear, I think one has the right to do pretty much what they want on their own property. It is taking property in the public realm that belongs to all for the good of all that I question. To me there isn't much difference between blocking a public road because I can and taking your food because I can. But yes, the people I'm with have discussed this and as mentioned earlier, any child gets a meal and water. Adults do not. I'm not sure how that becomes letting people into our home or allowing strange people to pass through our area. We want people to pass by our area. If they come into it that is different. Our area does not include public roads in our opinion.


As a father, my children come first. I will not compromise their safety. That is my responsibility, and any action that puts them at risk is grossly negligent and irresponsible.
Agreed. But we would suggest that instilling in our children the idea that might makes right is grossly negligent and irresponsible. There has to be some sense of community and rights of people in general.


It has absolutely nothing to do with me being stronger. And I'm fairly sure that nobody here is advocating taking advantage of any other group.
That is exactly what it is. "I will enhance my safety and security by doing something that reduces your safety and security. I will do it because I can and you can't stop me." Again, would it be OK if another group or family blocked the roads so YOUR group or family could not move around to areas you needed to get to? If not, what is the difference?

Most of us in the prepping community have no illusions about the severity of the situation bringing about those events. Thats why we prepare and preach self reliance. I (and most of us) do not have the ability to be giving our preps away. It doesn't mean that I don't feel compassion for these people, because I will. It simply means that I am not in a position to help.
That is fine, don't help. I don't think anyone has an obligation to help if it reduces their chances. I do think, however, there is an obligation to not make things worse for others just to make it better for you.


You're the one who is stuck on the bridges.
Which nobody has addressed, I'll point out. Denying free travel on public roads to improve your safety is denying free travel on public roads to protect your safety, isn't it?


In this situation, you're already alienated. Both you and them. It's not going to kill somebody to backtrack a few hundred meters or a mile and go around.
Two assumptions that may or may not be true. You don't know if anyone is alienated or not, nor do you know their travel situation.


As I said before, this is an extreme circumstance. As I said before, in such a large prolonged event do you honestly think that legalities the determining factor? There is a difference between morality and legality. Yes, sometimes the align and coincide, but there is a difference. Some things are constant.
Outside of the fact that I pointed out there is a legal issue regarding ownership of emminent domain property I haven't talked much about legality. I've talked about what is right. And yes, I do think morality is pretty much a constant. Not harming others who are not harming you is one of those moral constants, IMO.


Example: Murder, Rape, Looting, Assault.....these are both illegal and immoral. If SHTF, the morality of these issues dont really change. Whether you're Athiest, Buddhist, Agnostic, Christian, or just consider yourself to be a good person, most folks are going to agree these are wrong.
Dropping some trees on the road in front of your house? really? that's not even in the same stadium.
That is one opinion. If blocking the road means a family dies because they can't get through, maybe they would disagree with that opinion. By all means block your own road, but don't block the public road. So let me ask...if assault is immoral, will you assault me and mine when we start cutting your trees up to open the road?

[David Armstrong]

In the end, you protect your family's static position the best way you see fit, and I will mine. BUt in the end, I'm of the opinion that area denial is a viable option. Because you know what? I don't want to shoot somebody that shows up just wanting food and they happened to wander up.
How does blocking the road stop that? Dropping trees might stop a vehicle. It certainly won't stop anyone on foot. Probably won't even slow them down very much. And as I said, if you block the road you might actually encourage folks coming to visit to find out what is so important you would block the road.


That can create a no-win situation for both of us. For the sake of my morality, I'd prefer to address the situation before its given the chance to escalate. I think that a fairly moral decision on my part.
I'm not sure shooting "somebody that shows up just wanting food and they happened to wander up" is particularly moral, but morality is an individual thing I realize.

My group has discussed things like this in detail and we've developed a set of rules that we have agreed to follow. Maybe the fact that we all have military and/or LE backgrounds colors it to some extent. From a practical standpoint we just don't see any good coming form blocking public roads. It won't stop anyone from coming in who wants to come in, it draws attention to the site and will certainly PO anyone wanting to use the road. I certainly won't claim that our general views should be followed by anyone else on a micro level. But I do know one of our basic precepts is that we should do what we can to insure freedom of movement by the public. We would/will take chainsaws, winches, and if needed a bulldozer or backhoe to keep roads open. YMMV.

[2die4]

How does blocking the road stop that? Dropping trees might stop a vehicle. It certainly won't stop anyone on foot. Probably won't even slow them down very much. And as I said, if you block the road you might actually encourage folks coming to visit to find out what is so important you would block the road. True, but what about the saying that humans and animals will most likely choose the path of least resistance?




My group has discussed things like this in detail and we've developed a set of rules that we have agreed to follow. Maybe the fact that we all have military and/or LE backgrounds colors it to some extent. You do realize a majority of the colony have real world combat experience spanning from Vietnam to the shenanigans in Afghanistan. With that said, combat and L.E experience may never result in the firing of your weapon at another human during a tour or over the span of a career.

With the collective "experience" you can't tell me even your ex-military wouldn't agree that having a ECPs and maintaining a controlled flow to your compound is a good idea when a law abiding society does not exist.



But I do know one of our basic precepts is that we should do what we can to insure freedom of movement by the public.
A great precept to have but what do your group do when a neighborhood collectively decides to restrict the access to their neighborhood? Show LEO badges of a now defunct society? Destroy barriers yourself because it's the "right" thing to do? I don't think so. I'm going to assume your group would have bigger priorities than "insure freedom of movement by the public" Right or wrong, people are not going to compromise the safety of their love ones or other members of their compounds.

[Stormfeather]

Wow. . .I have to admit, I love this thread!

David, I see what you are talking about, and I have to ask, where do you stand? You obviously know where many of us stand, but I am curious as to where you stand? When it comes to protection of my family, I am the bottom line. The buck stops here. Are you willing to compromise that mindset for the safety of your family?

Now you mention blowing the bridges on Interstate 10, that is a whole different scenario than "Razorback Ridge Road" that has 3 families living on it, past all the fields, pastures, and woods and is a dead end road. You are talking a main thoroughfare that passes thru the state, im talking a dead end road in a county of 908 square miles with a population of 45,000. If you live near Baton Rouge (pop. 230,058)or New Orleans,(pop. 369,250) you know those city populations dwarf my county in population by four to nine times. I dont think of it as impeding their travel, because the only destination that they can end up is my, or my neighbors front porch. There is no reason for them to be on that road. Now, we are talking in a SHTF situation, Im not talking a snow storm, or blizzard, or anything like that. Im talking, WWZ, Red Dawn, Zombipocalypse type of SHTF. You ask if its right, and Im going to tell you straight up and unequivocally. . .NO its not right. But its one of the steps I can take in a ladder of escalation, where I dont have to worry about defending my family in close quarters. My family can live safe and semi-worry free because I am providing a safety bubble around them where they dont have to man a roadblock or an OP or where they dont have to possibly sit in a snipers hide and possibly pull a trigger on someone. Thats why I will do what I think is best.

You mentioned earlier . . . .


So it is OK for me to blow the main bridges on Interstate 10 to improve my security, even though it would probably decrease the chance of survival for others? Sorry, I just don't see that.

And you know what I would say to that? You need to do whatever it takes to keep your family safely alive and keep threats at a distance. If that means to you blow the main bridges in I-10.. then I guess you need to make that determination for yourself. I have no idea what you are willing to do to keep your family safe. I cant make that judgement about you, because realistically, I don't know you well enough to say what you are willing to do to keep your family safe. I cant make that choice. But I can make other choices. I chose to support my family, keep them safe, and away from harm, I chose to live away from large cities too, so I wouldn't have to make what I deem harder choices in the future. If the world goes to shit, and I have to cut down a bunch of trees and build a barricade across a dead end road, Im doing it. Theres nothing more important to me, than my families survival. I place that above all other things, including my own survival.

Now, you also mention. . .


How does blocking the road stop that? Dropping trees might stop a vehicle. It certainly won't stop anyone on foot. Probably won't even slow them down very much. And as I said, if you block the road you might actually encourage folks coming to visit to find out what is so important you would block the road.

Thats why I set up a roadblock farther away from my family, and thats why it will be manned. Theres nothing in my particular AO but us. So unless that person is family, theres no where for them to go on that end of the road. Its quite a few miles from the state highway to our front door, with nothing in between. So Yes, I will ask them to kindly turn around and go back the way they came. You say I could be encouraging folks to come see what I have, I think of it as discouraging them with the proper motivational mindset.

I'm not sure shooting "somebody that shows up just wanting food and they happened to wander up" is particularly moral, but morality is an individual thing I realize.

They can wander up and ask if we have food all they want, but at one point, they will be stopped, and told to turn around. Plain and simple. If they so choose to escalate the situation, then I guess they have to make that choice for themselves.

My group has discussed things like this in detail and we've developed a set of rules that we have agreed to follow. Maybe the fact that we all have military and/or LE backgrounds colors it to some extent. From a practical standpoint we just don't see any good coming form blocking public roads. It won't stop anyone from coming in who wants to come in, it draws attention to the site and will certainly PO anyone wanting to use the road. I certainly won't claim that our general views should be followed by anyone else on a micro level. But I do know one of our basic precepts is that we should do what we can to insure freedom of movement by the public. We would/will take chainsaws, winches, and if needed a bulldozer or backhoe to keep roads open. YMMV.

You can attempt to ensure freedom of movement all you want, but what do you do when someone decides that they are going to prevent that freedom of movement because you are encroaching on their perceived safety zone? Would you bulldoze a gated communitys gates who has an armed guard watching the front gate because there are streets there and your group deems it their job to open all roads to public travel? How about where cul-de-sacs group together for safety and blockage the street leading into their cul-de-sac? How long do you think this mindset will last? How many casualties do you think your group will sustain in the meantime before it becomes non-combat effective? How will you procure these bulldozers and backhoes? Does your group already own them, or will your group "liberate" them for the better cause? These are all questions that come to mind when I read your last statement.


That is one opinion. If blocking the road means a family dies because they can't get through, maybe they would disagree with that opinion. By all means block your own road, but don't block the public road. So let me ask...if assault is immoral, will you assault me and mine when we start cutting your trees up to open the road?

But this is what I am doing, while it is a public road, it is only our property, and our neighbors property that is on it. So yes, I am going to block it because we have made the decision that is part of the plan in place to keep us safe. Now as for the question would we assault anyone trying to cut thru our barricade? Then the answer is yes, we would, because we would see that as a threat to our safety. BUT, once again, remember, we are on a dead end road who's only residents are 3 familys at the very end of this dead end road. Very different circumstances if we was on a road that went by our property instead of ending at it. Im sure this isnt the answer you want to hear, but im sure it is the answer you expected.

Please understand, Im not trying to be rude, but it sounds to me like your group has a mindset of "we know whats best, so everyone is going to have to do it our way." and that is one of the reasons our country is in the dire straits its in now. So while we have our separate mindsets, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here brother, maybe im just not getting the concept of what you are saying, but im hoping I have been able to relay how we feel about it to where you can understand where I am coming from when I say safety of my family is paramount.

[helomech]

Now you mention blowing the bridges on Interstate 10, that is a whole different scenario than "Razorback Ridge Road" that has 3 families living on it, past all the fields, pastures, and woods and is a dead end road. You are talking a main thoroughfare that passes thru the state, im talking a dead end road in a county of 908 square miles with a population of 45,000. If you live near Baton Rouge (pop. 230,058)or New Orleans,(pop. 369,250) you know those city populations dwarf my county in population by four to nine times. I dont think of it as impeding their travel, because the only destination that they can end up is my, or my neighbors front porch. There is no reason for them to be on that road. Now, we are talking in a SHTF situation, Im not talking a snow storm, or blizzard, or anything like that. Im talking, WWZ, Red Dawn, Zombipocalypse type of SHTF.

Exactly my road is a dead end, only one other family lives on it. Husband and wife both near 90. We live in a county of 23k people, and my town is less than 300. I bet that less than 95% of the town does not even know the road I live on exists. During a SHTF there would be no reason for anyone to use it.

[Possom]

The more I think about the statement of blowing bridges the better it sounds. I think Arkansas would be a safer place if the government brought down the bridges on I-40 leading into Arkansas from Memphis.

We are talking for the greater good of the public right? Most of the crime happening in west Memphis Arkansas originates in Memphis Tennessee so we should block those bridges right now.

I am sure this could apply to the bridges on I-10 as well in New Orleans. Blow the crescent city and the Hugh p long bridge to protect the majority of good people in Memphis from the riff raff. Better blow the bridges over the intercostal canal separating the ninth ward from chalmette as well.

This is all for the greater good of the public. The majority surely deserves to impede on a few individuals right?

[mitunnelrat]

Wow. This topic is well within my lane. Where do I start? Oh! I know!

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

This concept was used to develop the various common law offences.[1]

Another way to describe the underlying conceptual difference between "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" is "iussum quia iustum" and "iustum quia iussum," namely something that is commanded (iussum) because it is just (iustum) and something that is just (iustum) because it is commanded (iussum).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se At least some of you should be familiar with this concept, considering your backgrounds!

Morality was indeed a component of this discussion, but I believe this thread has been sidetracked . Morality in the overall context, as in how you'd treat a refugee, could be viewed as a malum in se issue, but roadblocks fall solidly under malum prohibitum. I have no doubt many malum prohibitum style laws will be ignored by the majority of people in a large-scale, prolonged event. I also believe many people will die because they can't reconcile themselves against "violating" malum in se type laws to defend themselves... Either way, determing for yourselves how You will respond in each situation. Morality is relative anyway.

The overall mission of this site isn't to debate each other on our motivations. Our focus is on "what" we do, not "why." It always has been, and it always will be. "Why" is good for background, and does help lead to understanding at times, but it should not be made the primary issue as it has been in this thread. There is also more to "why" in this instance than the morality component. "Why" could also be, "because I don't have enough to share without compromising my own life" as some have already answered. Narrowing the focus as much as it has been does everyone a disservice in what they could learn from this topic.

I can speak with some authority on this topic because my background runs the gamut from the access control element so hotly contested here, to providing food to the hungry through charity. I was a combat engineer. No combat experience, but my primary job was to make and break obstacles. Since then I've been actively employed at securing various properties for private and public entities.

For further reference, I live roughly equidistant from not one, not two, but three cities within the top 10 most dangerous in the United States. The experiences of food banks there are vastly different than what I've witnessed, and I've already seen a good deal of hostility now, prior to any major destabiliization. Imo, a well-rounded prepper is one that prepares both for, and against, an event. So yes, I do have measures in mind to deny access where I can, while providing what I can when possible as well. I do so because I will manage risk, one way or another, and that is not a moral issue at all.

Debate methodology here, not morality. Understood?

[mitunnelrat]

On another note, I'd be much more comfortable if we also quit referencing explosives use. That shits unobtanium for most of us anyway, so there's no point to it, legalities and government radars aside ;)

[Possom]

Sorry. I will lay off the explosives talk.

[David Armstrong]

True, but what about the saying that humans and animals will most likely choose the path of least resistance?
Then shouldn't we leave the road open so they would take that instead of encouraging them to go off the road and look around?


You do realize a majority of the colony have real world combat experience spanning from Vietnam to the shenanigans in Afghanistan. With that said, combat and L.E experience may never result in the firing of your weapon at another human during a tour or over the span of a career.
Sure. My point was that when we sat down and were developing our policies we tended to address it from the standpoint of a long history of service to the community and decided that we would like to maintain that.


With the collective "experience" you can't tell me even your ex-military wouldn't agree that having a ECPs and maintaining a controlled flow to your compound is a good idea when a law abiding society does not exist.
Sure, that is a great idea. It does not require closing off public roadways, however.


A great precept to have but what do your group do when a neighborhood collectively decides to restrict the access to their neighborhood? Show LEO badges of a now defunct society? Destroy barriers yourself because it's the "right" thing to do? I don't think so. I'm going to assume your group would have bigger priorities than "insure freedom of movement by the public" Right or wrong, people are not going to compromise the safety of their love ones or other members of their compounds.
No showing of badges. First a visit to explain the importance of keeping public roads open. If that fails then we do what we can to open the roads. If that involves force then we will use force.

[David Armstrong]

Wow. . .I have to admit, I love this thread!
I'm enjoying it quite a bit also. Always nice to pick other folks minds.


David, I see what you are talking about, and I have to ask, where do you stand? You obviously know where many of us stand, but I am curious as to where you stand? When it comes to protection of my family, I am the bottom line. The buck stops here. Are you willing to compromise that mindset for the safety of your family?
I already have, and I think everyone does. There is always a compromise. Heck, there is a compromise between going it alone and working with a group. There will always be advantages and disadvantages to what we decide. I have decided the disadvantages are minimized with the group I am with versus going lone wolf with the family, for example.


Now you mention blowing the bridges on Interstate 10, that is a whole different scenario than "Razorback Ridge Road" that has 3 families living on it, past all the fields, pastures, and woods and is a dead end road.
That is why I have tried to suggest we should discuss the issue from a macro position than an individual micro position. It is difficult to discuss general philosophy on an individual basis. If the philosophy is "me and mine first no matter what" I'm not sure it is a different scenario.

You are talking a main thoroughfare that passes thru the state, im talking a dead end road in a county of 908 square miles with a population of 45,000. If you live near Baton Rouge (pop. 230,058)or New Orleans,(pop. 369,250) you know those city populations dwarf my county in population by four to nine times. I dont think of it as impeding their travel, because the only destination that they can end up is my, or my neighbors front porch. There is no reason for them to be on that road. Now, we are talking in a SHTF situation, Im not talking a snow storm, or blizzard, or anything like that. Im talking, WWZ, Red Dawn, Zombipocalypse type of SHTF. You ask if its right, and Im going to tell you straight up and unequivocally. . .NO its not right. But its one of the steps I can take in a ladder of escalation, where I dont have to worry about defending my family in close quarters. My family can live safe and semi-worry free because I am providing a safety bubble around them where they dont have to man a roadblock or an OP or where they dont have to possibly sit in a snipers hide and possibly pull a trigger on someone. Thats why I will do what I think is best.
I'm really not seeing a difference other than degree. So it is OK to do something if it only messes up a few people, but not OK if it messes up more? What is the magic number and how does one decide that?

And you know what I would say to that? You need to do whatever it takes to keep your family safely alive and keep threats at a distance. If that means to you blow the main bridges in I-10.. then I guess you need to make that determination for yourself.
That is sort of the question. At what point is it OK to create a harm for others in order to create a good for you and yours? Where does one draw the line?

I have no idea what you are willing to do to keep your family safe. I cant make that judgement about you, because realistically, I don't know you well enough to say what you are willing to do to keep your family safe. I cant make that choice. But I can make other choices. I chose to support my family, keep them safe, and away from harm, I chose to live away from large cities too, so I wouldn't have to make what I deem harder choices in the future. If the world goes to shit, and I have to cut down a bunch of trees and build a barricade across a dead end road, Im doing it. Theres nothing more important to me, than my families survival. I place that above all other things, including my own survival.
So again, is it OK for someone else to block a road such that your family's chances of survival are reduced just so his family's chances are improved?


Now, you also mention. . .
Please note that I have said there is a different between a manned post to control access as opposed to a total blackage, and I think you are well within your rights to pretty much do what you want with your property. Trying to take public property for private use is a different issue to me. Also telling folks to leave if they show up looking for food is different from just shooting them outright.


You can attempt to ensure freedom of movement all you want, but what do you do when someone decides that they are going to prevent that freedom of movement because you are encroaching on their perceived safety zone? Would you bulldoze a gated communitys gates who has an armed guard watching the front gate because there are streets there and your group deems it their job to open all roads to public travel?
I think pretty much by definition a gated community with an armed guard is not a public access road. And we don't think it our job to open all roads to public travel. We will take them as we find them.

How about where cul-de-sacs group together for safety and blockage the street leading into their cul-de-sac? How long do you think this mindset will last? How many casualties do you think your group will sustain in the meantime before it becomes non-combat effective? How will you procure these bulldozers and backhoes? Does your group already own them, or will your group "liberate" them for the better cause? These are all questions that come to mind when I read your last statement.
The other side of that, of course, is how many casualties is your group willing to suffer to keep a public road closed? Or equally, is it OK for my group to block off your cul-de-sac so you cannot get out if you want? As for the group, yes, we already have access to dozers and other equipment.
ETA: to try to stay more with the methodology, if you have a group a suggestion is to bring into the group someone that does heavy construction. It gives you access to lots of great equipment.


But this is what I am doing, while it is a public road, it is only our property, and our neighbors property that is on it.
Again, I ask that folks try to think macro on this instead of micro.

So yes, I am going to block it because we have made the decision that is part of the plan in place to keep us safe. Now as for the question would we assault anyone trying to cut thru our barricade? Then the answer is yes, we would, because we would see that as a threat to our safety. BUT, once again, remember, we are on a dead end road who's only residents are 3 familys at the very end of this dead end road. Very different circumstances if we was on a road that went by our property instead of ending at it. Im sure this isnt the answer you want to hear, but im sure it is the answer you expected.
So it is OK to block some public roads but not others based on how important you think they are? Sorry. Also not meaning to be rude, but I have to reject that as a working philosophy.


Please understand, Im not trying to be rude, but it sounds to me like your group has a mindset of "we know whats best, so everyone is going to have to do it our way." and that is one of the reasons our country is in the dire straits its in now.
On the contrary, we have the direct opposite mindset. We say you don't have the right to do whatever you want because you think you know what is best. We argue that the needs of the community need to be preserved along with the needs of the individual and what is best for you (block a road) has to be balanced with what is best for the community (right to free travel and access to public lands). In fact, I'd suggest the problem with the country is this mindset of "I can do whatever I want without worrying about others as long as it makes me feel good".

So while we have our separate mindsets, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here brother, maybe im just not getting the concept of what you are saying, but im hoping I have been able to relay how we feel about it to where you can understand where I am coming from when I say safety of my family is paramount.
Sure, and I certainly understand. I disagree with the concept that in order to have safety for the family one has the right to reduce the safety of another person's family. I'm more of a "social contract" guy, some are more of a "feudal warlord" style. Both have been shown to work under different circumstances, I think we disagree on which would be best for these circumstances.

[David Armstrong]

Wow. This topic is well within my lane. Where do I start? Oh! I know!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se At least some of you should be familiar with this concept, considering your backgrounds!

Morality was indeed a component of this discussion, but I believe this thread has been sidetracked . Morality in the overall context, as in how you'd treat a refugee, could be viewed as a malum in se issue, but roadblocks fall solidly under malum prohibitum. I have no doubt many malum prohibitum style laws will be ignored by the majority of people in a large-scale, prolonged event. I also believe many people will die because they can't reconcile themselves against "violating" malum in se type laws to defend themselves... Either way, determing for yourselves how You will respond in each situation. Morality is relative anyway.
The basic problem with mala en se versus mala prohibita is that there is a lot of disagreement over what should be considered in se and what should be considered prohibita. I would certainly take the position that denying the right to travel on public road would be mala in se. I believe the courts have been pretty consistent in saying that.


The overall mission of this site isn't to debate each other on our motivations. Our focus is on "what" we do, not "why." It always has been, and it always will be. "Why" is good for background, and does help lead to understanding at times, but it should not be made the primary issue as it has been in this thread. There is also more to "why" in this instance than the morality component. "Why" could also be, "because I don't have enough to share without compromising my own life" as some have already answered. Narrowing the focus as much as it has been does everyone a disservice in what they could learn from this topic.
I realize you are admin and as such I'm not challenging your authority on the site, but I would suggest looking at this thread with the idea that determining the "why" helps define the "what" and in this case the decision-making process is the most important part, as that will help determine the "what" that is best-case. Sometimes "why" has to be a primary. Heck, I'd suggest that "why" is the primary purpose behind prepping at all.


Debate methodology here, not morality. Understood?
Respectfully, can one figure out what methodology is appropriate without debating the morality? Again, not trying to create a problem but I don't see how to discuss protection of property or helping strangers or similar issues without the morality base to decide what methodology to select.

[The Stig]

Guys, I'm digging all the discussion this thread is generating. Please continue to bat it around.

That said, a friendly reminder....

Knock it the fuck off with massive posts full of multiquotes. For fucks sake. Make a point or two but a post with 15 individual quotes is making me want to toss baby chickens into a blender.

Seems to me the central issue here boils down to who gets to control what when all of society melts away.

Somehow I see zero difference between the two positions. Whether you are deciding who doesn't enter your land OR who does enter everybody else's land the fact is you are making decisions on the behalf of other people.

Me thinks that may not go over so well if normal societal rules have vanished.

Just saying

[Taz Baby]

wow I had no Idea this would go in this direction. All I was wondering is, well hell, let me just ask this and see if we can get back on tract.

If in your group you had no Doctor and all you had was people who got their info from the web, books ect preparing for SHTF, that had no real hands on training what to do with a injured person, would you turn away a dr. who came up? They have experience working with all kinds of trauma and injured people, can operate, set bones, amputate limbs and no one in your group has ever done any of those things. Would you think of keeping that person around if they are willing to prove their self that they mean no harm and they want to help? If so what would make you come to that decision. If not same question.

[The Stig]

We have gone over this question time and time again in different scenarios, and it is a very hard one to answer. It really all depends on the situation but you still have to make a list of things to look for in them. Some of the things I would look for is, How they act when they approach you, are they angry, violent, threatening, or are they just wanting help? How would you determine on what you would do if this happened? Would you go with your instinct, gut feelings, emotions, or just think everyone at this time is out to harm you? If you took them in, would you make them work before they got to eat, bath, got clean clothes? Would you have a place where only the outsiders can stay away from your main camp?

I think I would have a place where the outsiders can stay away from my group until they can prove their self. They would be under guard at all times, not allowed any weapons, if they had any I would take them away. Have to work before eating. It would be hard to look at the kids and not feel heartbroken but you can't let your heart lead you in this instance. Have you thought about this and have you made a plan on how to handle this?

As you say, really depends on the circumstances.

If society has melted away, and I'm somehow in a position to dictate who joins my group and who doesn't (which is a pretty big assumption)....

* Their demeanor on the approach would likely play the biggest part in how they are handled.

* Folks would have to prove themselves at the little things before they are trusted with the big ones

* They would be kept away from the main camp/house but weapons not taken away.

* All skills would likely be welcome but it would be up to the person to get creative and apply their skills to the betterment of the overall group. Clearly some skills will take precedence

* There is a balance between strength in numbers and trying to take everybody in. Not sure where that line is however.

[helomech]

If I knew he/she was a doctor sure, but my plan is to not meet any strangers during a shtf event. I will do everything possible to make sure no stranger ever gets within a mile of my home. Stopping them that distance from my home is my mission, and I will do anything necessary to make sure that happens.

And I am not talking about storms or any incident that would leave emergency services in tact. The above statement is during a meltdown and everyone is on their own.

[Possom]

I guess I expect things to be a little different when SHTF here. During a nation wide emergency our town would somewhat keep functioning. When all goes to hell people here won't just lock down in their houses or compounds and never come out. People will still intermingle. The hospital and doctors here will somewhat function. Obviously not as well as before but life will go on.

If by some chance a DR came to us wanting to join our group after shtf I would take him to the hospital or triage area set up in town. Where he would better benefit our town. My wife is a nurse which might bias my approach some but I think a DR would be better off in town not out here with us.

Crime will get worse post shtf but punishment for criminal activity will become much more swift and severe. Within the die off phase of a long term collapse things will get bad. However, here where I live I feel it will never get bad enough for people to stop coming together to trade and assist one another.

Things will be different in every part of the USA. If you are close to a major city things will definitely be worse then they will be here. People in cities have forgotten how to live. They do not know where food comes from, much less how to raise it. This is where the majority of the killing and taking and die off phase will take place at.


People here are not that removed from the ways of old. My grandparents, as well as my wife's grandparents, lived the vast majority of their lives without electricity and running water. They raised or killed or gathered the majority of their food. Drew water in a bucket out of the well out back. It will not take that much of a transition back to that.

[David Armstrong]

Seems to me the central issue here boils down to who gets to control what when all of society melts away.

Somehow I see zero difference between the two positions. Whether you are deciding who doesn't enter your land OR who does enter everybody else's land the fact is you are making decisions on the behalf of other people.

Me thinks that may not go over so well if normal societal rules have vanished.

Just saying
I don't think anyone is advocating that one should get to decide who enters other's land, unless by "everybody else's land" you mean public property that is considered open to all. If it is your own land do what you want. let others do what they want with their land, and leave public lands open and available to all would certainly be my position.

- - - Updated - - -


wow I had no Idea this would go in this direction. All I was wondering is, well hell, let me just ask this and see if we can get back on tract.

If in your group you had no Doctor and all you had was people who got their info from the web, books ect preparing for SHTF, that had no real hands on training what to do with a injured person, would you turn away a dr. who came up? They have experience working with all kinds of trauma and injured people, can operate, set bones, amputate limbs and no one in your group has ever done any of those things. Would you think of keeping that person around if they are willing to prove their self that they mean no harm and they want to help? If so what would make you come to that decision. If not same question.
We are always open to anyone with skills that we would need. Whether the skills are important enough to offset the cost of them coming into the group becomes the question.

[eagle326]

As you say, really depends on the circumstances.

If society has melted away, and I'm somehow in a position to dictate who joins my group and who doesn't (which is a pretty big assumption)....

* Their demeanor on the approach would likely play the biggest part in how they are handled.

* Folks would have to prove themselves at the little things before they are trusted with the big ones

* They would be kept away from the main camp/house but weapons not taken away.

* All skills would likely be welcome but it would be up to the person to get creative and apply their skills to the betterment of the overall group. Clearly some skills will take precedence

* There is a balance between strength in numbers and trying to take everybody in. Not sure where that line is however.

Thanks Stig. This is what I was alluding to about how we might handle it. You have the pieces in place to watch the demeanor of the travelers. If by chance they're friendly and maybe some can be useful to the group then you might consider ways for them to prove how they can improve life at your compound.
But in a total S.H.T.F. situation you or your group go by your standards of what is right for you and yours and their safety. Nobody is ever going to agree totally as how to do things. We do the best we can and try our best to do the least amount of harm as possible.

Yet everyone here has seen what smaller disasters ; Katrina ; Sandy and so on has done to other wise normal people. Imagine a total collapse of society & government. People today are not equipped for a set back in time. People today as sad as it is to say only worry about today . Many people like us look to the what if this happens as did our fore fathers. I ; We can only do so much ; and my family here and many on this site come first because I know we are as one in the sense of surviving to make things better in the long run.

All of us have our own burdens and choices to bear and the simple fact that we can agree to disagree is the cement that will keep us together through the roughest of times because we communicate as equals ; brothers, sisters and as a colony whole. No other site that I'm on has the respect for every member's opinion with out getting nit picky or rude.
I read more than I post but one thing stands out to me.

We may be a smaller site but we're all in for all it's worth towards each others survival. We may not see eye to eye on all subjects but I sure as hell don't want to to come up against you bunch of angry ANTS !! ;)

[The Stig]

I don't think anyone is advocating that one should get to decide who enters other's land, unless by "everybody else's land" you mean public property that is considered open to all. If it is your own land do what you want. let others do what they want with their land, and leave public lands open and available to all would certainly be my position.

Your group has decided to work to keep public roads open no?

By default you are deciding for someone else what happens to that road in the event of a total SHTF worldwide/law is never coming back situation. Whether that decision is moral, just or 100% correct you are deciding the fate of that stretch of road.

Just as some here are saying they will work to decide who does/doesn't pass a specific area your group is doing the same. That is, you are deciding to work towards keeping a public road open. Two sides of the same coin.

Whether you like it or not you are attempting to dictate control over a specific piece of land.

Further, someone else might take issue with your attempt to dictate control over a specific piece of land.

[helomech]

I guess I expect things to be a little different when SHTF here. During a nation wide emergency our town would somewhat keep functioning. When all goes to hell people here won't just lock down in their houses or compounds and never come out. People will still intermingle. The hospital and doctors here will somewhat function. Obviously not as well as before but life will go on.


That may be the case, but I said strangers. I know everyone in my town, at least have seen them before. If the town is functioning, then that would good, and we would help as much as possible. But if the town is not functioning and we are on our own, then no strangers would be allowed any where near. It is totally dependent on the situation. If I feel it is safe to venture out and meet up with others we will do that, if I don't feel it is safe, then we will deny access to our property by all means possible. Heck during the normal wind storms I am the almost always the one that gets all the roads clear.

[eagle326]

Now I could be wrong here ; But if total S.H.T.F. hits us there's no longer any such animal known as public roads or territory. All property or lands would revert back to those able to care for it. I say this because in a total melt down there is no government to dictate law. Therefore he / they who lay claim to a parcel or territory are said stewards of said land mass no matter how big or small.

Now I'm no lawyer or know it all. I go by that which seems to be right and just. So if society fails I and mine will control that which we can to ensure the safety of those on the inside while taking precautions not to harm those who mean us no harm. Some times over thinking a situation does more harm than good. The basic instinct of man which most have forgotten is intuition.
Most of us call it the 6th. sense. And I'm here to tell you it works 100% if you follow it's lead. I've spent too many years on terra firma not to listen to it. We are born with it in the weaker sense as probably most people are and never really understood it . After a short period of time in Vietnam it hit me like a tsunami. I never understood it till then and have lived by it ever since. Now I'm not saying I know anything ; I'm only saying that I know what works for me and that which I've taught , my offspring. None of us have the total answer but together as a colony we will find the path that works for all of us and those that are left on the outside.

We are but stewards until civil law returns to everyone everywhere and our duty is to do the best we can until such a day if ever.

[David Armstrong]

Your group has decided to work to keep public roads open no?

By default you are deciding for someone else what happens to that road in the event of a total SHTF worldwide/law is never coming back situation. Whether that decision is moral, just or 100% correct you are deciding the fate of that stretch of road.

Just as some here are saying they will work to decide who does/doesn't pass a specific area your group is doing the same. That is, you are deciding to work towards keeping a public road open. Two sides of the same coin.

Whether you like it or not you are attempting to dictate control over a specific piece of land.

Further, someone else might take issue with your attempt to dictate control over a specific piece of land.
Again, I disagree with the basic concept. If I prevent a burglar from stealing my neighbors property I am not attempting to control my neighbors property, for example. If someone were to try to steal the wheels from your car and another stopped them from doing so would you say that the person doing the stopping was dictating control over your vehicle? We are not attempting to control anything in the public domain, we are preventing it from being controlled. We do not/will not dictate control nor will we allow others to dictate and control who have no right to do that dictating and controlling. I would also suggest that no matter how severe the SHTF scenario, unless everyone is killed there will be a return to social interactions, law, and so on. That has been the pattern of mankind for as long as we can tell. Law, control, and social interaction will return. Always have, always will.

[David Armstrong]

Now I could be wrong here ; But if total S.H.T.F. hits us there's no longer any such animal known as public roads or territory. All property or lands would revert back to those able to care for it. I say this because in a total melt down there is no government to dictate law. Therefore he / they who lay claim to a parcel or territory are said stewards of said land mass no matter how big or small.
If there are enough people left to have pretty much any social interaction there will be some kind of law, or rules of interaction if that terminology is better. Sometimes the rules are might makes right, but even then part of the might has been to insure areas and pathways for the public. I'm having a hard time visualizing a SHTF scenario where anybody would be left that would not also leave a basic system for social interaction in place. Help me out here??

[The Stig]

Yet everyone here has seen what smaller disasters ; Katrina ; Sandy and so on has done to other wise normal people. Imagine a total collapse of society & government. People today are not equipped for a set back in time. People today as sad as it is to say only worry about today . Many people like us look to the what if this happens as did our fore fathers. I ; We can only do so much ; and my family here and many on this site come first because I know we are as one in the sense of surviving to make things better in the long run.


While I do agree that people today are "softer" than our forefathers, I often wonder if a true, totally catastrophic meltdown will simply force people to dig deep and find their inner hardass.

[helomech]

While I do agree that people today are "softer" than our forefathers, I often wonder if a true, totally catastrophic meltdown will simply force people to dig deep and find their inner hardass.

I doubt it. By the time they do find their inner hardass I think it would be to late. Some people as proven during Katrina will sit around and wait for help, and if that help does not come they will be to weak to do anything.

[eagle326]

If there are enough people left to have pretty much any social interaction there will be some kind of law, or rules of interaction if that terminology is better. Sometimes the rules are might makes right, but even then part of the might has been to insure areas and pathways for the public. I'm having a hard time visualizing a SHTF scenario where anybody would be left that would not also leave a basic system for social interaction in place. Help me out here??

In a total melt down with no government people will most likely turn on each other for whatever reason. Most people believe that the government will always be there running like a fine tuned Swiss watch. I on the other hand believe the direct opposite. Politicians and most people are all about themselves no matter who gets hurt in the process. Government is taking care of it's own with disregard to the average American and will only do a much as they need to do to try and keep the sheep in line.
So there'll be more lawlessness than they can take care of. They'll play the game of hoping a lot will wipe the others out ; thus leaving less for them to control.

It's during this time that a lot of people will become stewards of the land and life in general. I've always believed that every human is born and learns at an early age right & wrong. So yes there wouldn't be any law being enforced as it is today in my opinion during a total melt down because of the logistics and man power involved.
So at first it will be very rough and painful to those who live & those that die. Our job as stewards is to try and work out what's best for our survival and those who mean us no harm.
The original post only touches on one aspect of a multitude of things we'll be dealt. All groups ; no matter who will need to converse and work out the best way to overcome the minor differences. And that's all this is.

By being good stewards we try to the best of our combined abilities to ensure our own safety without harming others if we can avoid it. It won't be an easy task but one we will endure in order to bring us back to being a lawful ; free nation as intended.
I believe all of us on this site are of the basic frame of mind and we only need a little fine tuning. We'll probably never see eye to eye ; but we'll be close enough to live without up setting the apple cart.

[Stormfeather]

Very well put Eagle!

[David Armstrong]

In a total melt down with no government people will most likely turn on each other for whatever reason. Most people believe that the government will always be there running like a fine tuned Swiss watch. I on the other hand believe the direct opposite. Politicians and most people are all about themselves no matter who gets hurt in the process. Government is taking care of it's own with disregard to the average American and will only do a much as they need to do to try and keep the sheep in line.
So there'll be more lawlessness than they can take care of. They'll play the game of hoping a lot will wipe the others out ; thus leaving less for them to control.
That may be so, but I'm not clear on why that would mean a total loss of social interaction with the accompanying rules that go with that. The total meltdown with no rules that some here seem to be talking about has no support in history AFAIK, even though there have been many meltdowns. I'm somewhat doubtful it would even be possible.

[eagle326]

That may be so, but I'm not clear on why that would mean a total loss of social interaction with the accompanying rules that go with that. The total meltdown with no rules that some here seem to be talking about has no support in history AFAIK, even though there have been many meltdowns. I'm somewhat doubtful it would even be possible.

By being good stewards we try to the best of our combined abilities to ensure our own safety without harming others if we can avoid it. It won't be an easy task but one we will endure in order to bring us back to being a lawful ; free nation as intended.
I believe all of us on this site are of the basic frame of mind and we only need a little fine tuning. We'll probably never see eye to eye ; but we'll be close enough to live without up setting the apple cart.

My whole point without debating until time dies is there will always be some kind of law . Hopefully by stewards who care about humanity even if they do screw up a few things.
Can't rebuild a free nation without breaking a few eggs no matter how hard you try. I know that I don't have all the answers to placate everyone but I'll do that which I believe is right and those rules by which I was raised.

Harm no human ; Unless you know harm is coming to you. I wish you the best in your group's endeavors. Time will tell how the workings of mankind will fare.
As far as history ; I look at it as a lesson learned. History is never stable ; Victors write history ; So there-fore the truth is theirs . History can only be taken as truth if the men who write it are honest. There hasn't been total honesty in history of man for ages. Man always makes himself into the shining knight rescuing the poor and down -trodden when in reality he's only looking for victory and the right to teach man in his own image.

Wouldn't it be something to actually win a battle totally and let the people police themselves . Let the rights and wrongs work out themselves no matter how harsh the learning curve is. Then and only then will justice and man living side by side actually work. I don't know a lot of that which maybe I should know. I only know that I'll do my best to live in harmony with all mankind unless he endangers myself ; loved ones or brothers of my heart.

Lastly ; Anyone who believes that there can never be a total melt down in this country because maybe we're Americans is living a lie in the sense that greater nations in history have befallen to the same fate.
May we all endeavor to do that which is sound and just no matter how hard the task before us may be.

Eagle

[Stormfeather]

How does blocking the road stop that? Dropping trees might stop a vehicle. It certainly won't stop anyone on foot. Probably won't even slow them down very much. And as I said, if you block the road you might actually encourage folks coming to visit to find out what is so important you would block the road.


I'm not sure shooting "somebody that shows up just wanting food and they happened to wander up" is particularly moral, but morality is an individual thing I realize.

My group has discussed things like this in detail and we've developed a set of rules that we have agreed to follow. Maybe the fact that we all have military and/or LE backgrounds colors it to some extent. From a practical standpoint we just don't see any good coming form blocking public roads. It won't stop anyone from coming in who wants to come in, it draws attention to the site and will certainly PO anyone wanting to use the road. I certainly won't claim that our general views should be followed by anyone else on a micro level. But I do know one of our basic precepts is that we should do what we can to insure freedom of movement by the public. We would/will take chainsaws, winches, and if needed a bulldozer or backhoe to keep roads open. YMMV.

I have to admit, I am curious which of these backgrounds you personally hail from? If it is military, what was your military background, and what time frame? MOS? If not military, then obviously L.E. So what type of dept and how long? The reason I ask, is Im just trying to make a connection between your answers here.

[bacpacker]

While I do agree that people today are "softer" than our forefathers, I often wonder if a true, totally catastrophic meltdown will simply force people to dig deep and find their inner hardass.

Stig, I do not think a high percentage of people will ever develop their inner hardass. IMO, most people now days wouldn't know where to start and have few if any skills to help them survive. That is other than to take whatever they can get their hands on. The survivors of the first, oh say 6 months or so, will learn things and the percentage that make it that long will begin to understand what it takes. before that not so much.

DA, I still don't see how you think by not allowing folks who live in a particular area to control their area as best they see fit, is not trying to control them. The two just don't match up at all. Again IMO, the folks who live in a given area, be it like Helo and Stormy, who are on dead end areas with how many or how few of a group they have, or someone like myself who has several neighbors, who I feel confident will band together to protect our little AO as best we can, know full well what they need to do to make their given area as safe as it can be. Sure there may be a family or individual come by that wants pass thru. What I am talking about trying to control is a large group who is just out raiding to get what they can. Can you honestly tell us, that you are willing to allow a hoard to pass thru your area, just so they have free passage.

In the end this thread is just an exercise in thinking thru scenarios. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and should any of this occur, will act to the best of their beliefs and abilities. There will be plenty of screw ups and damage to go around. I just pray that I make the best decisions I can at the time and protect those that I can to the best of my ability. If I harm someone or group while trying to do the right thing, well I'll deal with that as best I can.

[Stormfeather]

I have to agree with you here, most folks are too far along to even know how to be hard/hardcore. They are too involved in their petty day to day existence, starbucks latte, and Dancing With The Stars to realize that its going to take more than harsh words to dissuade some bad people from hurting them. Once they realize that there is no 911, no National Guard, and nobody is going to come help them or save the day, there's going to be a extremely high learning curve when it comes to survival. Being physically prepared is great, but at some point, the smart ones will be preparing themselves mentally and emotionally for the hardships that may accompany life if SHTF.

[mitunnelrat]

I realize you are admin and as such I'm not challenging your authority on the site, but I would suggest looking at this thread with the idea that determining the "why" helps define the "what" and in this case the decision-making process is the most important part, as that will help determine the "what" that is best-case. Sometimes "why" has to be a primary. Heck, I'd suggest that "why" is the primary purpose behind prepping at all.


Respectfully, can one figure out what methodology is appropriate without debating the morality? Again, not trying to create a problem but I don't see how to discuss protection of property or helping strangers or similar issues without the morality base to decide what methodology to select.

Ok, sorry for the delay in replying. I don't do this too often, but in this case I will back off my original position and cede to the points DA has made here, especially since I shifted gears in how I originally intended to reply anyway. Everyone has my apologies for coming across stronger than I'd intended, because I too was enjoying the level of discussion here.

I do have several thoughts and directions I believe we can go on this, but my problem still is, as it was, to what standard do we gauge morality? Its a question akin to the elephant in the room here, and leads down paths we don't follow, which led my response down a rabbit trail that I ultimately typed out. Its also why I said we need to answer the question for ourselves.

I think we can carry on in a slightly different vein though. For instance, I don't believe blocking a road to be a malum in se offense. I say this because we can look at human and animal behavior across a broad spectrum and and see that property rights do not follow a universal pattern. At the same time I can come up with several species, ourselves included, that protect themselves and their food supplies by creating barriers against predators. Birds, for instance, nest in trees. Prairie dogs go underground. Squirrels use trees to evade predators and hold food stores. You can take this a step further and also look at how the sleep patterns of predator and prey also come into play.

Its my opinion human nature mimics that of the animal kingdom, but I have the impression the perceived need for barriers has evolved and lessened as societies have advanced, to say nothing of gun powder rendering their use largely obsolete -though exceptions do exist. Of course, most of this is more readily seen on the macro level, rather than the micro

Its this view that leads me to think roadblocks and other access control techniques are a viable strategy for those of us wishing to isolate ourselves during any period lacking rule of law. Given that man is capable of much more complex thought and action than animals it follows that measures to defend against those actions would also increase in complexity and range. Distance = time to react.

I'm a proponent of supporting a local community in times of disaster. There are already accounts of neighbors and communities banding together in the aftermath of disasters to support and defend one another, and some of their methodology included restricting access to their communities. I would have no qualms helping close off my own locale in the aftermath of a major event, and would do the same on a smaller scale for my home. If we can't buy ourselves time through distance we'd have to maintain a higher state of physical readiness, which impairs our ability to accomplish other tasks - and sleep, both of which compromise our ability to survive. Employing passive security measures, such as roadblocks, is a force multiplier in my eyes. I have ideas and plans toward organizing to support an entire community and perhaps stave off starvation, but that doesn't mean it'll come from my own stores, and certainly not from the source of my stores if I do choose to distribute some of them.

I'll be back with more. I need to organize my thoughts and collect some hard data to discuss this most effectively.

[MegaCPC]

I've been following this thread and it made me realize there is a lot more to this subject then I had originally thought about and planned for. This is why I like this site, it makes me constantly reevaluate my plans which I thought were pretty good. Anyhow, on to the meat and potatoes.

If, and it is a big if, hungry strangers made it to my AO, I would be very wary of them, especially if they have children. Hungry people (especially parents) are capable of doing some nasty things for a meal. I doubt they are thinking about morality when they haven't eaten in days. I think that in a SHTF situation, animal instinct will trump morality, always. Having morals in SHTF will be a luxury, and I hope my group is successful enough to have that luxury.

In the unlikely event that 1) strangers get to me, 2) they pose no perceivable threat, and 3) we can spare something for them, I would like to help them. Keywords: "like to." What if they have diseases? What if this is a distraction for a hostile takeover? Always evaluate and reevaluate threats. If I was feeding some people, they would be set up outside and away from the rest of us, and monitored for these reasons. They can have their own little Thanksgiving dinner, over there. There may or may not be someone from our group watching you eat through a rifle scope.

I like that people are discussing community. My perspective is an American one but most of this can be applied elsewhere too. I enjoy living in rule of law and I think that after the shock of the main event wears off and the survivors settle in, reestablishing community and commerce will be the best thing to do. Of course I am thinking neighborhoods and small towns outside of cities for a start. There is a massive disconnect between the citizens and "the government" these days, but I think that small local governments can and should be established post event if possible. We The People are the government, and it is important that we try to carry on like our Founding Fathers did. Sure you can isolate yourself and your group/family for a while, but probably not forever. I think it is in the best interest to try to reform society as soon as realistically possible. It could be months or it could be years, but a functioning society is a MAG, and we should strive for it.

[Gunfixr]

Wow, miss some time and look what happens.
Not sure how blocking roads got to murder rape and pillage, but strange things happen, I guess.

You know, if there were a "total societal breakdown", all that "public property" and "eminent domain" shit will go right out the window. People will keep what they are strong enough to keep. There will be no sheriff to come make you move your roadblock.
That said, I would not recommend blocking a major thoroughfare. However, if your neighborhood can be blocked off without interrupting any traffic flow (such as it would be) through parts of town and to businesses that may be open, and it increases your safety, I'd say go for it. It is part of my plan to go to the other members of our neighborhood and suggest just this. If we all agree, it will be done. If things go back toward normal, there would come a point where it would be undone. If someone comes down here and thinks they should open the road, even though they don't live here, because the garden down the street in the front yard is more accessible from a vehicle, they're gonna have a real problem.
See, blocking off areas frees up the use of space inside the area for productive purposes, while keeping those who should not have access away.
Saying that the road should be open just so anyone who doesn't live there can just come through on a cruise, or to case the joint, post-shtf, is BS. Hell, it's a problem now. Why do you think so many more financially enabled people have gated communities? They've blocked off a public road, to keep people they think don't need to be there out.

Just like camps in Africa have big walls of thorns around them like a natural fence. It keeps the animals out. Same principle here. When the animals stop roaming, we'll take the fence down.

[Stormfeather]

I like the way you think!