Loose Lips Sink Ships

I understand the question being asked here but what came to my mind first was why would he not shame his friend for being evil. How can someone who is friends with someone for years not know they are evil? But I guess that is a good question because as it stands the friend is a huge threat and I do believe whether he is an honorary Uncle or not, he has stated he is a threat. So do you become pro-active and eliminate the threat first? That is a real tough question. As a decent human being, if you know someone is a threat to others the right thing to do is to alert the proper authorities. Yet if SHTF and those proper authorities are not in place to deal with the threat, do you become the judge and jury? Do you eliminate the threat before he can strike anyone or do you make plans for when he arrives on your door step?

I have to think on this because it is a very troubling scenario.

 

The article provides a good example of the need for OpSec, and also provides us an example of why there should be a line drawn in our minds between "associates" and "friends." I have many associates. I have few friends.

I have associates whom I know through past years in the military, and through current business dealings, and social connections. A person doesn't become a trusted "friend" just because I have them over for burgers and beers on occasion, or because I work with them, or because our children play together.

I share a level of information about myself with associates, and I share another level with friends. The fellow in the article makes "friends" too easily.

As to the question of whether or not to initiate preemptive action against someone who has stated their intention to rob others when the SHTF, I would say "No," because:
1. If this person has made this claim to you, he either does not consider you as a potential target, or he's talking to hear himself talk. Many of my associates enjoy talking to hear themselves talk. I listen, and remember. I'm careful of what leaves my lips on any subject.

2. EVERYONE, in the right situation, will become a predator. I don't care how high a person's morals are, when their children start starving, they will do whatever they can do to address the situation. If you believe that you should take preemptive action against all suspected predators, where do you start, and where do you stop?

3. You run the danger of getting killed yourself. Not all violent confrontations turn out the way that the initiators of the action thought that they would turn out. And, if your associates were just running off at the mouth, you have become the predator, and you are now the problem for others to deal with. You don't kill others for what they MAY be thinking.

Were I the fellow in the article, I would take this on board as a lesson in friendship; and I would bring the subject up in conversation again with my associates and, when they again state their plan to attack those who have prepared, tell them "I'm glad to find this out now. I know to shoot you on sight." You can say it with a smile and a wink, and not overly affect your current association, but plant the idea in their heads that robbing you may not be a good plan.

 

When I was in sales one of the best things I've learned to do is listen. I learned to listen a lot more than I talk. You get a bunch of like minded people around a campfire drinkin' and talkin' and sooner than later tongues will wag.
I know who the "most likely to be a raider's" are, who they hang with, where they live and what they drive.

Like jolly Ole St Nick I'm makin' a list and checkn' it twice.

 

That is the best response. Perfect! The rest of your response was great also, but the wink and a smile, totally will put him in the dark. Very good.

 

It is a case of risk v. reward, there will always be a risk with any member of your group, no matter how well you think you know them.

Let's use us monkeys as an example:

Total collapse SHTF, @ghrit who lives north of me is travalling thru my AoO, contacts me via Monkeynet, needs a room for the night while passing thru. I think back to pre SHTF days, he's a knowledgable fellow, decent manners, seems to be on board with the prepping lifestyle, so I decide to let him stay with me and my family. The best outcome is an exchange of ideas and a friendship that might prove valueable in the days to come, but I know that I could also wake up with all of my food gone. Would I go after him and hunt him down, no, but I would pass on the warning to others and they could do as they choose too. the point is that there are risk in everything we do, not just as preppers, but as humans. You do your best to minimize these risk, but nothing you can do will every eliminate them all. Without risk you cease to grow

 

I know I have seen a many folks who think that raiding others would be the way they would get by post SHTF but I tend to think these folks would largely be eleminated in short order. If they are attacking the unprepaired or poorly prepaired low hanging fruit they wont get anything for their trouble since the targets dont have anything. If they attack those who are reasonably prepped at their bases then they are attacking a a lightly fortified position. IIRC popular wisdom of military tactics says it take 10 attackers per defender to overrun a held position. So if the house they attack has say 5 people inside they need 50 to take it and can expect 50%+ casualties in doing so and if they want the supplies they cant improve their odds by useing fire. Once they take it they have to devide the supplies between a much larger force than they were intended for so they dont last and have to raid again soon. Now they have 25 so attacking a held position with 5 occupants is likely to result in total losses. Add to this that in any area with the least bit of community when someone starts attacking members of the community (especialy outsiders attacking locals) others will come together, if not for moral reason then simply to eleminate the threat with help before its on their step and they do it alone, and elimenate the threat.

So IMHO these folks are not likely to be nearly as much of a threat as they like to think. Most with that mindset think they are invincable and invincability is the greatest of weaknesses.

Those who have that aas their primairy plan wont be a part of my group and if they are preying on my neighbors or coming at me they would be dealt with but I would have enough to deal with on my own to not need to be trying to go looking for any windmills to tilt at after SHTF.

 

Decisions that we all will have to make when the time comes.I know that you don't go looking for mad dogs,but when confronted by a mad dog,you kill it.

 

I'm reminded of a quote from the great w.c. fields, "any man will steal if he's thirsty enough"

 

Reminds me of a thread from last summer, on the same topic. Lots of wisdom here:

What to do about "Bubba".....