# Who gets shot on sight when the SHTF ?



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

A hard question, as Shoot On Sight (SOS) is both illegal and immoral in today’s society. But it may become necessary for survival if things get very bad. Here’s a few that come to mind, please feel free to add some of your own.

1.	Looters. Even today looters can be shot in riots; at first glace in a societal collapse looters sound like a prime candidate for SOS. But if everything collapses, looting, or ‘Resource Gathering’ if you prefer, may become the only way to survive, and people’s attitudes may change to accept it. 

2.	Cannibals. No argument here. Just know that starvation can alter your brain chemistry to the point where, in extremis, this may become okay in some minds. In Liberia in their last SHTF war, cannibalism was indulged in by army personnel to gain strength before battle, and they were generally well fed.

3.	Sick people. In a biological emergency such as a lethal airborne virus, SOS may become required for survival of the community. Hard to tell for sure.

4.	Thieves. Depends on the circumstances I guess. For a group that is barely hanging on with vegetable gardens and rabbit hutches, a thief in the night may become a “target of no regret”.

5.	Murderers and rapists. SOS. Enough said.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

I will make that call the moment it comes. I find no fault with your list as a general guide line.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

guards on duty that get drunk or high - or otherwise desert their post ....

under "sick people" I believe that mercy killings would have to be wider spread than just because of an airborne virus epidemic ....


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> A hard question, as Shoot On Sight (SOS) is both illegal and immoral in today's society. But it may become necessary for survival if things get very bad. Here's a few that come to mind, please feel free to add some of your own.
> 
> 1.	Looters. Even today looters can be shot in riots; at first glace in a societal collapse looters sound like a prime candidate for SOS. But if everything collapses, looting, or 'Resource Gathering' if you prefer, may become the only way to survive, and people's attitudes may change to accept it.
> 
> ...


I'd say #3 would be an issue for me. Taking the life of the innocent is God's dept., not mine.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Annie said:


> I'd say #3 would be an issue for me. Taking the life of the innocent is God's dept., not mine.


Me, too. But what's the alternative? Allow them to infect the entire community? Say it was ebola virus, for example. VERY dangerous, almost a death sentence. Do you isolate the infected individual and attempt treatment? Do you have the full protective equipment and supplied-air respirator to insure YOU don't become infected? Or just send them down the road to die a horrible death?

So many questions, so few acceptable answers.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> Me, too. But what's the alternative? Allow them to infect the entire community? Say it was ebola virus, for example. VERY dangerous, almost a death sentence. Do you isolate the infected individual and attempt treatment? Do you have the full protective equipment and supplied-air respirator to insure YOU don't become infected? Or just send them down the road to die a horrible death?
> 
> So many questions, so few acceptable answers.


There's a limit. Killing the innocent is a line I wouldn't cross. I would say isolate the sick and one or more persons care for them as best they can.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Anyone with tattoos on their face would warrant REAL CLOSE observation from me.
And if found on my property..................


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Illini Warrior said:


> guards on duty that get drunk or high - or otherwise desert their post ....
> 
> under "sick people" I believe that mercy killings would have to be wider spread than just because of an airborne virus epidemic ....


I'll second this one, even though it's ugly... sort of. A short story; I have(and sometimes do) work as a bouncer. Once upon a time in SWFL, we were working a hotel during spring break, and so we took on some extra guys, to handle all the people! Well the vetting could have been better. Long story short, homeboy got [email protected] up, and went into a room with some skank... meanwhile a couple on his floor started to argue and it turned into a big thing. Girl get beat up and "raped" by guy. Guy got stabbed. Homeboy got fired..
Point is; we can cut lots of corners, security isn't one of them though..


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Annie said:


> There's a limit. Killing the innocent is a line I wouldn't cross. I would say isolate the sick and one or more persons care for them as best they can.


If someone has been exposed to a fatal dose of blood agent, blister agent or has a fatal stomach wound,

It is more merciful to end the suffering for them, especially if there is no analgesic like Morphine available.

I left out nerve agents because their time is short anyways without Atropine sulfate.

Natural bio illness is another thing all together,

depending on affliction they may well survive, therefore let it run its course.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Now to be a smart ass, those who deserve it, anyone who could pose as a mortal threat.

That is the riddle you will have to solve, no easy answer, actions would be determined by the overall situation.

It is for these actions you need to know the situation on a national basis.

Country wide SHTF, I would be a hell of a lot quicker to defend us here as things degraded.

Now in a major nation wide SHTF, any blacks or browns would most likely be engaged immediately.

Facial tattoos get instant fire and no quarter.

We have none of either living in this town, 

which would mean they are foragers or looters, not looking for their lost dog.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

Tough call, would depend on the current situation in the area, if there was rampant looting and mayhem in close proximity and I can’t leave, I probably wouldn’t hesitate to take someone down that I don’t recognize, I know everyone in my area.....but then again you never know the people you think you know.....


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Any vehicle with a Milwaukee city sticker on it, Il plates ect would be prime targets.
As with rstanek if you don't belong here you stand out. Don't mean you get shot on sight but you will be in the cross hairs.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Annie said:


> There's a limit. Killing the innocent is a line I wouldn't cross. I would say isolate the sick and one or more persons care for them as best they can.


Of course always see the entire spectrum of behavior when things go bad... and I can pretty much guarantee there will be sick, infectious jackasses who REFUSE to be or remain isolated... and just going after what they want or need with no regard for others. For me and my family, that would take them off the "innocent" list. Just sayin'...


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

Democrats.
Socialists. 
Politicians.
Tax collectors.
G men.
T men.
Revenuers too.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Coastie dad said:


> Democrats.
> Socialists.
> Politicians.
> Tax collectors.
> ...


In that order or as they come? :staff:


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Sorry can't give out such info. It may be used against me in the future.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> A hard question, as Shoot On Sight (SOS) is both illegal and immoral in today's society. But it may become necessary for survival if things get very bad. Here's a few that come to mind, please feel free to add some of your own.
> 
> 1.	Looters. Even today looters can be shot in riots; at first glace in a societal collapse looters sound like a prime candidate for SOS. But if everything collapses, looting, or 'Resource Gathering' if you prefer, may become the only way to survive, and people's attitudes may change to accept it.
> 
> ...


6. Communist

7. Liberals

8. Democrats

9. facist

10. Socialist


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Most of the answers will depend on where you are.

In Chicago with an obvious pickup truck bed full of food, . . . is one thing, . . . under cover somewhere out in the boonies, . . . is a total other ball game.

At my cave, . . . I've always expected that the ones we really have to worry about won't be on the horizon for a minimum of one week, . . . maybe even two, . . . as they will pick the lower hanging fruit closer to their lairs.

After that, . . . when I get good intel that "they" have arrived in the area, . . . there will be no warning shots. Act like a looter, robber, thug, rapist, murderer, or MS13, . . . buzzards will begin to like me real quick. 

Bodies will be drug out to the highway and dropped for all to see, . . . ain't doin no burial detail.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Coastie dad said:


> G men.
> T men.
> Revenuers too.


Mighty, mighty pleasin', pappy's corn squeezin's
White lightnin'

(Most of the folks here are probably either: 1. Too young, or 2. City slickers, or 3. Listen to the "country music" crap that's played on the radio today)


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

MountainGirl said:


> In that order or as they come? :staff:


Fust be come, fust be served.


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

Lord of the Flies Libertarian types for sure .


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

Well now, that's a no-brainer. I'm sure the grandkids will only miss her for a short time.
.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

I think allot of choices will be situational.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Annie said:


> I'd say #3 would be an issue for me. Taking the life of the innocent is God's dept., not mine.


Agreeded. Depending on the epidemic, how much risk is acceptable? How many others receive death sentences? If it's your wife or child how do you not try everything possible? Tough choices and no one size fits all answer. Taking of life by trying to preserving one Resulting in the of death for multitudes? Thankfully most epidemics are not quite that bad. One statagy for keeping others away is to feign epidemic.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

6811 said:


> 6. Communist
> 
> 7. Liberals
> 
> ...


A good list, but you forgot to add rino.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Annie said:


> There's a limit. Killing the innocent is a line I wouldn't cross. I would say isolate the sick and one or more persons care for them as best they can.


won't even have to be an epidemic disease of any kind to get overwhelmed with the sick - going to be plenty of sheeple that get hit early on by food poisoning and/or dysentery - you could be hit on the perimeter by a dozen or more daily - no med facilities - no amount of med prepping would help - no possible help in the near future .... and again that's not taking into account violence casualties, the common communicable diseases like typhoid and then the whole subject of starving ....

mercy killings are going to be more prevalent than you could imagine - not only by civilians but on a official basis in the FEMA camps ....

if it's a viral epidemic - it won't be a matter of mercy killings - it'll be more survival than anything ....


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

nobody brave enough to point out the obvious - how fast will a serious SHTF go racial? - then race war? ....


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Race war won’t last long....


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Who gets shot on sight?

The Easter bunny. That guy has always creeped me out. Big creepy ears, huge creepy eyes, a Hannibal Lechter smile... beside, as big as he is, you could make one giant-ass rabbit stew out of him.

Somebody's also going to put a cap in the tooth fairy, that whole "creeping around inside somebody else's house messing with their kids beds" thing won't fly if the SHTF. It's pretty sketchy right now as it is.


----------



## Gunn (Jan 1, 2016)

Kill em all. Let GOD sort em out. You take from me or mine, you try to harm me or mine, you infringe upon me or mine, you go down. Sorry, I am there to protect me and mine.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Illini Warrior said:


> nobody brave enough to point out the obvious - how fast will a serious SHTF go racial? - then race war? ....


I'm not sure it will "go" racial, . . . as much as just degenerate into that.

As it always has done in the past, . . . "tribes" form, . . . based on all sorts of criteria, . . . most obvious at first will be ethnicity and locale, . . . call em gangs, tribes, groups, whatever, . . . there will be roving bunches, . . . and when they come, . . . they will have to be put down, . . . or you go down.

It WILL get rough out there, . . . and it may not take much to get it started.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

That's easy the guy manning the 50 on an mrap:vs_laugh:


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Illini Warrior said:


> nobody brave enough to point out the obvious - how fast will a serious SHTF go racial? - then race war? ....


I'd never thought of this angle, but it makes sense.

If there is no law and order, the people you trust the most come from a homogenous group. Ergo, anyone "different" is a potential threat.

In like manner, an ethnic group considering itself a minority of the general surviving population will figure their only safe route is not sitting and being patient, but killing as many diverse groups as possible as fast as they can.

Personally, I'm going to Sturgis. No beer tent has ever fallen to sharia law, so love 'em or hate 'em, we bikers know how to take out the trash.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Well I TRY not to judge a book by its cover so I wont be knocking folks off from over 200 yards away.

UNLESS they have a face tattoo.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Yeah, some genius. He has a Sicilian oath on his neck. Funny, he looks black to me.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Camel923 said:


> Agreeded. Depending on the epidemic, how much risk is acceptable? How many others receive death sentences? If it's your wife or child how do you not try everything possible? Tough choices and no one size fits all answer. Taking of life by trying to preserving one Resulting in the of death for multitudes? Thankfully most epidemics are not quite that bad. One statagy for keeping others away is to feign epidemic.


Yeah, like I said, it's just a moral law I wouldn't cross.

Also, think what that'd do to the group morale, to go shooting the sick? Trust would go out the window.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Annie said:


> I'd say #3 would be an issue for me. Taking the life of the innocent is God's dept., not mine.


I also agree, but sometimes we need to do "The Lord's" work, so he has time for the other things he is letting happen.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

I would make the call on an "as needed basis", but I would make it. So many people have been raised as dumb bells, that it would be impossible to avoid all of them. What is a dumb bell?
Anyone that presses their luck, and defies good sense, and will not stop it--- such as--- they keep approaching when told to stop. Or if they try to sneak up on me, that will be the end of them.


----------



## unclefred (Nov 28, 2017)




----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

The Tourist said:


> Yeah, some genius. He has a Sicilian oath on his neck. Funny, he looks black to me.


Edit, last warning, Soco.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

unclefred said:


>


This is all wrong!!!! He should have never gotten that close to the 91.

What is under the robe, a Scorpion MP?


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

unclefred said:


>


You got that right, SOCOM42. No way he gets that close without stripping to bare skin and showing empty hands.


----------



## RJAMES (Dec 23, 2016)

I would hope that people would be detained or taken into custody and have a trial. Maybe not like we do today but the best you can under the circumstances . Determine a judgement for a person based on evidence and a jury handing down a sentence. Write down what was decided and keep a record. 

Establish a civilization - rule off law as soon as possible. 



Looting is a strange word. If it is a couple days after a hurricane , no power , refrigerators down and food rotting while people are hungry is it looting to go into a grocery store and start cooking all of the meat that has thawed out and will be bad tomorrow? I say it is not looting - it is making the best of a bad situation. 

The big screen TV being taken - that is looting but a question should a person who steals a TV be shot? I for one do not think so.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

RJAMES said:


> I would hope that people would be detained or taken into custody and have a trial. Maybe not like we do today but the best you can under the circumstances . Determine a judgement for a person based on evidence and a jury handing down a sentence. Write down what was decided and keep a record.
> 
> Establish a civilization - rule off law as soon as possible.
> 
> ...


 A lawless land will have perpetrators face an on spot jury and trial, by the person mostly offended. Right or wrong, it will be the reality.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

RJAMES said:


> I would hope that people would be detained or taken into custody and have a trial. Maybe not like we do today but the best you can under the circumstances . Determine a judgement for a person based on evidence and a jury handing down a sentence. Write down what was decided and keep a record.
> 
> Establish a civilization - rule off law as soon as possible.
> 
> ...


You make some good points. Problem is once looting starts it doesn't necessarily stay commercial and it turns to residents becoming prey. Two businesses shouldn't be striped bare because it's free crap for looters. When things break down that bad being armed is the only reasonable way to protect you and yours. Remember the Rodney king riots and the Korean merchants? No one looted the armed shop keepers. The other businesses looted went bankrupt and never reopened. Loose everything you have to looters then see if you feel the same.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> Yeah, some genius. He has a Sicilian oath on his neck. Funny, he looks black to me.


The didfence between a Sicilian and an African is about 60 miles of Mediterranean. At least that's what I told my cousins Sicilian boy friend.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

RJAMES said:


> Looting is a strange word. If it is a couple days after a hurricane , no power , refrigerators down and food rotting while people are hungry is it looting to go into a grocery store and start cooking all of the meat that has thawed out and will be bad tomorrow? I say it is not looting


Looting isn't so much a strange word as it is a word for very strange and unacceptable behavior. It is generally accompanied by violent, "wilding" behavior as well (remember that word from the '80's?). Smashing and burning stores and buildings. If the true owner of ANY establishment doesn't want you in there... food rotting or NOT... then YES it is looting. YOU do not get to decide what is fair and equitable with another man's goods HE DOES. AND he has the right to keep potentially violent people out of his property.
Normally one wouldn't shoot a thief for stealing a big screen TV. However, once he has smashed his way in the floodgates are open for dozens to follow and strip that business and bankrupt the owners, as well as do violence they feel they may be unaccountable for... so yes, in a rioting and looting scenario first guys through the kicked-in door or window get lead for lunch.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

I don't believe that I'm ever going to have a "shoot on sight" policy. The first reason for this is even if man's law is suspended Gods Law always reigns including "thou shall not kill." I don't have a problem acting in self defense which includes protecting life sustaining resources that cannot be replaced but I do not want any innocent blood on my soul when I get judged. Secondly I'd say there is a very small chance that civilization as we know it would never be restored meaning that eventually there will be someone calling people to account for lives taken during a shtf event. You better have a pretty good reason and I'd even say evidence to support why you decided to take a life.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Malcom Renolds said:


> Well I TRY not to judge a book by its cover so I wont be knocking folks off from over 200 yards away.
> 
> UNLESS they have a face tattoo.


I live in Houston. On sight, no questions asked.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Anyone Saggin.

Anyone with Skinny jeans

Anyone who has an Obama or Hillary bumper sticker,

Pretty much any one that doesn't say excuse me sir

and damn near everyone that doesnt run away after seeing me.

As to your more serious list. I'm not above mercy killings...but I'm also not above saving my ammo and supplies. Depends on the situation....just try not to get sick around me and we will both never know.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

RJAMES said:


> I would hope that people would be detained or taken into custody and have a trial. Maybe not like we do today but the best you can under the circumstances . Determine a judgement for a person based on evidence and a jury handing down a sentence. Write down what was decided and keep a record.
> 
> Establish a civilization - rule off law as soon as possible.
> 
> ...


you can make that argument until your bare azzed and sitting on the curb - the eyes see different and the mindset changes when it's you & yours doing the suffering ....


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> I don't believe that I'm ever going to have a "shoot on sight" policy. The first reason for this is even if man's law is suspended Gods Law always reigns including "thou shall not kill." I don't have a problem acting in self defense which includes protecting life sustaining resources that cannot be replaced but I do not want any innocent blood on my soul when I get judged. Secondly I'd say there is a very small chance that civilization as we know it would never be restored meaning that eventually there will be someone calling people to account for lives taken during a shtf event. You better have a pretty good reason and I'd even say evidence to support why you decided to take a life.


you just might not have a choice about that SOS - if it's either shoot first or possibly die from the 100% guaranteed incoming - that's called war - and there's some very possible if not almost guaranteed street war scenarios that could erupt in a serious SHTF ....


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Two weeks before people get deranged and crazy to survive. Be prepared and ready to be an APEX predator for survival.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

The hardest part about the impending apocalypse is pretending you're not looking forward to it, right guys?


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

I hate this thread.
Just sayin.


----------



## yooper_sjd (May 14, 2017)

been reading the thread past few days. I would have no problem on Mercy shot to end the suffering if Medical help was not available, or could not get reached in a an aspect of days of suffering. (of course this would depend on severity of causality and chance of survival. Definitely ain't gunna happen over a broken leg or arm). As for protection of Life and property, most definitely and would try my damnedest to stay within the Texas statutes on the use of deadly force. That right there is already pretty broad and pretty self explanatory when reading it. Just incase there is some kind of Legal System that does re-emerge after a major collapse of society.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

MountainGirl said:


> I hate this thread.
> Just sayin.


if it's any consolation - there'll 10,000X more die of starvation than by any other means - think of this prepper site as a boot camp - get the mindset to be ready for the realities ....


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

MountainGirl said:


> I hate this thread.
> Just sayin.


Me too, and I started it. Reality sucks sometimes.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Illini Warrior said:


> you just might not have a choice about that SOS - if it's either shoot first or possibly die from the 100% guaranteed incoming - that's called war - and there's some very possible if not almost guaranteed street war scenarios that could erupt in a serious SHTF ....


It would have to be pretty damn bad and even at that I still believe you need some justification other than they have face tattoos, dark skin, or a Hillary bumper sticker.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> It would have to be pretty damn bad and even at that I still believe you need some justification other than they have face tattoos, dark skin, or a Hillary bumper sticker.





> Body modifications = mental illness
> 
> There are links between tattoos and psychiatric disorders such as depression (Heywood, 2012), eating disorders (Carroll, 2002), borderline personality disorder (Raspa, 1990), neuroticism (Pozgain, 2004) and increased risk of suicide (Carroll, 2002). Seven or more piercings, or intimate piercings, described higher risk behaviors and emotional distress (Owen 2013). In high school students, tattoos correlate with suicidal idealization, suicidal attempts, and depression (Yen 2012).
> 
> ...


Mental Illness is something that will be purged from the "gene pool" if possible during/after SHTF.

A tattoo on the arm is one thing.
A face tattoo is an INDISPUTABLE evidence of poor mental health.

In church this Sunday look around and see how many folks there with you show their love of GOD with a tattoo on THEIR FACE.

Sure, folks CAN change. But I aint taking the chance on THIS:












> In some places, the tattoo can mean a lengthy prison sentence, while in others it signifies that the wearer has committed murder. If the teardrop is just an outline, it can symbolize an attempted murder. It can also mean that one of the inmate's friends was murdered and that they are seeking revenge.


----------



## MI.oldguy (Apr 18, 2013)

All I will say is there is a Castle Doctrine & self defense law where we live.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

MI.oldguy said:


> All I will say is there is a Castle Doctrine & self defense law where we live.


"Surviving trespassers will be shot again."


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> It would have to be pretty damn bad and even at that I still believe you need some justification other than they have face tattoos, dark skin, or a Hillary bumper sticker.


it occurs daily across the country now - and their justification is a vulnerable outsider being in their territory and an opportunity to prosper while inflicting pain on someone that "deserves" it ... not to mention the attacks on anyone exhibiting a Trump support tidbit ...

if combat is drawn down a particular line - you could probably refuse to accept it - retreat - keep refusing to engage - get shot in back retreating one day - or they come for you leaving no option ...


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

sideKahr said:


> Me too, and I started it. Reality sucks sometimes.


It can and does sometimes, yes.

In fairness - most here would be facing those choices and decisions, so your running this thread is warranted, and likely a good idea.

My situation is different, living this remotely, so my answer to your OP is probably no-one. We wont get the roving hordes up here or even small groups (until, maybe, long after the event). In the first month (post starvation) if a straggler comes up in the winter snows - s/he's either no threat, or armed and savvy enough to have survived getting here and would have come in unobserved and unnoticed by the dogs, we'd likely be taken out before we even knew what hit us. In the summer pretty much the same; there are lots of things for an outsider to get through before making it this far.

That said, if someone does come in who is perceived in that moment as a threat, and the opportunity is there, I would kill them without hesitation.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> I hate this thread.
> Just sayin.


WHY? Hate is such a strong word.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

ekim said:


> WHY? Hate is such a strong word.


Yes, it is a strong word. It's a strong topic that reveals there is no good outcome, regardless of how things unfold.

Why do you ask? Does the word Hate bother you?


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

This thread is why I want to live far away from everyone sometimes. So, I will know if someone is coming to my house is friend or foe.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

From what I have read the opinions here seem to move back and forth from rule of law existing and not existing, my answer would be very different depending on which situation I find myself in. However I think it is fair to say that it is not likely that I would shoot anyone on sight. I do however have a system in place to deter and detect intrusion, as well as the ability to quickly dispatch real or perceived threats. A system that is tested, practiced, and updated often. I will also point out the worst of humanity that I have ever seen or encountered did not look like bikers, or gang bangers, or crack heads, or cartel members, or escaped inmates. They looked like everyone else on the street, they sounded like everyone else on the street, but they were pure evil on the inside.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Illini Warrior said:


> it occurs daily across the country now - and their justification is a vulnerable outsider being in their territory and an opportunity to prosper while inflicting pain on someone that "deserves" it ... not to mention the attacks on anyone exhibiting a Trump support tidbit ...
> 
> if combat is drawn down a particular line - you could probably refuse to accept it - retreat - keep refusing to engage - get shot in back retreating one day - or they come for you leaving no option ...


I believe you're quoting the exception rather than the rule. Then again I may just live in a pretty good area. See around 8 or 9 years ago we had our version of SHTF when an icestorm virtually destroyed the electrical grid including phone lines. The roads where impassible for a couple days and they had to call in crews from out of state to get the grid up and going again. Power was out for around a month for some of the rural areas. There wasn't wide spread pandamoniam, on the contrary it actually brought out the best in people and to my knowledge no one got shot in self defense or in an attempted robbery.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> Yes, it is a strong word. It's a strong topic that reveals there is no good outcome, regardless of how things unfold.
> 
> Why do you ask? Does the word Hate bother you?


No, the word Hate doesn't bother me. I was actually being sarcastic, because I think there would be a positive outcome. That being a possible threat is removed. JMO.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

If you care to share, I think most of us would like to hear about your system of identifying evil threats.

Thanks!

Slip



patrioteer said:


> From what I have read the opinions here seem to move back and forth from rule of law existing and not existing, my answer would be very different depending on which situation I find myself in. However I think it is fair to say that it is not likely that I would shoot anyone on sight. I do however have a system in place to deter and detect intrusion, as well as the ability to quickly dispatch real or perceived threats. A system that is tested, practiced, and updated often. I will also point out the worst of humanity that I have ever seen or encountered did not look like bikers, or gang bangers, or crack heads, or cartel members, or escaped inmates. They looked like everyone else on the street, they sounded like everyone else on the street, but they were pure evil on the inside.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

ekim said:


> No, the word Hate doesn't bother me. I was actually being sarcastic, because I think there would be a positive outcome. That being a possible threat is removed. JMO.


If you think having to kill someone is a positive outcome - you've never done it.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> If you think having to kill someone is a positive outcome - you've never done it.


I've never been shot or killed either, so I guess we are even in the scoring department. Right wrong or indifferent I'm at peace with my mindset to do what I must to survive.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

ekim said:


> I've never been shot or killed either, so I guess we are even in the scoring department. Right wrong or indifferent I'm at peace with my mindset to do what I must to survive.


Not sure what you are scoring since this is not a game, but I've been shot at, shot, returned fire and killed him.

I'm glad you are at peace with your mindset; all I can do is wish you the best of luck with whatever comes your way.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

Slippy said:


> If you care to share, I think most of us would like to hear about your system of identifying evil threats.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Slip


You might have to read my post again. It says "deter and detect intrusion" not "identifying evil threats". Unless you have direct connection to the Lord above or are a premier member of the psychic hotline there is no way to identify evil threats until the evil is perpetrated. But what I do have is a lot of years of training and practice how to read people well beyond the words they say or the persona they put forth.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

The Tourist said:


> Yeah, some genius. He has a Sicilian oath on his neck. Funny, he looks black to me.


Hey buddy, there's a black person in Sicily!


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

SOCOM42 said:


> Edit, last warning, Soco.






 THIS IS WHAT HE MEANT.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

patrioteer said:


> You might have to read my post again. It says "deter and detect intrusion" not "identifying evil threats". Unless you have direct connection to the Lord above or are a premier member of the psychic hotline there is no way to identify evil threats until the evil is perpetrated. But what I do have is a lot of years of training and practice how to read people well beyond the words they say or the persona they put forth.


not to mention being well acquainted with the local doo doo heads.


----------



## SGT E (Feb 25, 2015)

MountainGirl said:


> If you think having to kill someone is a positive outcome - you've never done it.


Then you've never been in the Military....


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

SGT E said:


> Then you've never been in the Military....


Yes, I have. And LE.

Killing is what you do when other choices dont exist.
Unless you enjoy it, which I dont, and I dont know any sane person who does.
You just find a way to deal with it. Maybe someone here can explain this better.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

Yes, taking lives has a positive outcome for a military operation or objective. The same way taking lives has a positive outcome for police if the lives taken pose a serious threat to the community. But it has a very negative toll on the people who have to pull the trigger. We have veterans committing suicide every single day, some claim as many as 22 a day. Those are real people who have served their country that are now suffering from the toll of killing, among other factors. We do what we have to do, but there is a price to pay.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

patrioteer said:


> Yes, taking lives has a positive outcome for a military operation or objective. The same way taking lives has a positive outcome for police if the lives taken pose a serious threat to the community. But it has a very negative toll on the people who have to pull the trigger. We have veterans committing suicide every single day, some claim as many as 22 a day. Those are real people who have served their country that are now suffering from the toll of killing, among other factors. We do what we have to do, but there is a price to pay.


Absolutely right.

And, unless I misunderstood @sideKahr 's intent, this thread was not about military or police objectives, but about the one on one, face to face, choices each of us here would have to make. Unless someone has actually been there, they don't have a ****in clue.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

MountainGirl said:


> Absolutely right.
> 
> And, unless I misunderstood @sideKahr 's intent, this thread was not about military or police objectives, but about the one on one, face to face, choices each of us here would have to make. Unless someone has actually been there, they don't have a ****in clue.


All you can do is Practice, Practice, Practice.
De Sensitize,De Sensitize,De Sensitize.



















After a while the "pink mist" becomes like that sound the horn makes in hockey...


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

MountainGirl said:


> Yes, I have. And LE.


Thank YOU, for your service!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## preppermyA (Aug 19, 2017)

sideKahr said:


> A hard question, as Shoot On Sight (SOS) is both illegal and immoral in today's society. But it may become necessary for survival if things get very bad. Here's a few that come to mind, please feel free to add some of your own.
> 
> 1.	Looters. Even today looters can be shot in riots; at first glace in a societal collapse looters sound like a prime candidate for SOS. But if everything collapses, looting, or 'Resource Gathering' if you prefer, may become the only way to survive, and people's attitudes may change to accept it.
> 
> ...


Anyone with a blue helmet.


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

During SHTF, I think I'd be willing to kill or maim anyone who clearly demonstrated that they are likely to severely harm or murder innocent people. I'd justify it to myself by believing that I was probably saving at least one person's life.


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

MountainGirl said:


> Absolutely right.
> 
> And, unless I misunderstood @sideKahr 's intent, this thread was not about military or police objectives, but about the one on one, face to face, choices each of us here would have to make. Unless someone has actually been there, they don't have a ****in clue.


As someone who doesn't have a ****'n clue, it seems to me that there's a BIG difference between killing an innocent enemy combatant, who's just doing his job for his country, -and a scumbag who morally deserves to die. I think killing the former would cause a lot more guilt than killing the latter.


----------



## preppermyA (Aug 19, 2017)

TGus said:


> As someone who doesn't have a ****'n clue, it seems to me that there's a BIG difference between killing an innocent enemy combatant, who's just doing his job for his country, -and a scumbag who morally deserves to die. I think killing the former would cause a lot more guilt than killing the latter.


Guilt or not, if it's an enemy combatant, it will probably come down to kill or be killed.


----------

