February 3, 2015 at 3:01 pm #35697
I have one more concern regarding the initial contact carpe has described. No one addressed the mother issue. If this adult thinks you have food, there is a good chance she will tell other people you have food.February 3, 2015 at 3:12 pm #35699
Good point, 74. However, sometimes I think they might not even care. The way our society is degrading, she may just be trying to clear her conscience. Anyway, your point is well made either way.February 3, 2015 at 3:21 pm #35701
“she may just be trying to clear her conscience” Without knowing what the future is for the child, essentially this woman has abandoned her child to die.February 3, 2015 at 3:22 pm #35702
Yep. Sick as it is. I can see it happening.February 3, 2015 at 3:41 pm #35703
<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>carpedebass wrote:</div>Great point Sledjockey. But, what would you do?
I would have to be in that situation and make the decision at that time based upon where I was, what was going on, and what my available resources were. Having a hard and fast set of rules one way or another might work in some instances, but to be fully able to survive what is thrown at you calls for a little “improvising, adapting and overcoming. Semper Gumby – always flexible.”
<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>MountainBiker wrote:</div>74 and sledjockey both make good points, and I will admit I hadn’t thought about the point sledjockey made about the kids being plants to jeopardize security. Older kids maybe, but not toddlers such as the 3 year old used in the example. Still, though I can’t save everyone, I will save a few if I can. As Roadracer said, I want to maintain my humanity right up to the end.
History would disagree with you that 3 year olds are not able to be used in warfare as decoys, ways to compromise security, etc. The extreme would be the refugee children that have bombs strapped to them. You can’t expect even a 3 year old to just be a 3 year old….. They literally have had 3 years of either good or bad education. How many 3 year old terrors have you seen running around the grocery store because the parents don’t watch them. You want to add that nightmare to an already dangerous situation? There is probably more than 1 reason that the adult dumping them is quick time out of the area.
Again, I am not sure what I would do. The blind acceptance of anyone (even a child) could compromise the safety of my own family. That will not happen. If I could take the young kid in without endangering my own family then I probalby would. Teens and older kids that weren’t raised by me? Not so sure. I raised a daughter and have another one that was raised by her mother (long story and I was not allowed to have anything to do with the kid as in no direct contact at mother’s request because I didn’t know she existed until she was already in 2nd grade – judge granted). Teenage years are brutal. The girl I raised was an angel compared to 99% of the teenager girls out there and she really damaged our family in several ways in a non-SHTF type scenario. I couldn’t imagine my demon daughter’s behavior at even age 21 in a SHTF situation.
Christian or not….. “Innocent child” or not…. There are too many variables to truly be able to make this decision outright.
So, to summarize:
1) How many walkers have you killed?
2) How many people have you killed?
http://ageofdecadence.comFebruary 3, 2015 at 3:46 pm #35706
“Semper Gumby” Always Flexible…I love it!!February 3, 2015 at 4:05 pm #35707
When my wife headed a social service agency a number of years ago, she told me that she had several mothers walk in with children and then just leave them. This is not during a SHTF scenario, it’s happening today. As the morals of our country continue to slide into the dumpster, there are mothers out there today that would do it without a second thought. Now add to that the struggles of whatever SHTF scenario you would select, and this will become a very real situation that we should thoughtfully consider.
Now add to that mix, the very real possibility that not everyone in your group, or even your family will agree.February 3, 2015 at 4:22 pm #35708
I’m in Sleds camp on this. The question is not what is humanitarian for the child, that is obvious. The question is, will it compromise the safety of your camp.February 3, 2015 at 4:58 pm #35709
It may compromise your camp for sure, but again it all depends on there age, a 1 to 6 year old is a child I would not turn down. I would be on the lookout for adults for sure day and night with my group but would take them in.
I would have a problem turning them down and then a week or two finding them dead. This would be a bigger problem on my mind. We will face many compromises in a SHTF so we will have to make a judgement call for each one we face.February 3, 2015 at 5:00 pm #35710
<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>74 wrote:</div>I’m in Sleds camp on this. The question is not what is humanitarian for the child, that is obvious. The question is, will it compromise the safety of your camp.
I think both are valid questions.February 3, 2015 at 5:32 pm #35711
Freedom, Just being the devils advocate I must ask, what if there are lots of people around. Maybe this is a ruse, a ploy to see if you have food. Without knowing you’re gambling the safety of your group. You will need to follow the women and see of she is with a group.February 3, 2015 at 6:32 pm #35714
74, Yes this will happen but what will you do if it is a 3 year old no matter how bad the parents are for sending there child over to see if there is food I think you have to save the child.
Now I do think that this will not happen. Why well because they will not send there child in to see if we have food. Again why well in a SHTF time everyone that is alive has food to stay alive so they would just hit you for the food and not send there child in to see if you have food.
If in a SHTF times you see any big group alive they must have food and water period.
So this is why I think a small child from 1 to 6 may have lost there parents or there parents got killed.February 3, 2015 at 6:48 pm #35715
Good point, Freedom. But someone could send a child in to disrupt or sabotage. In essence, using them as part of a coordinated offensive as was mentioned earlier.February 3, 2015 at 7:01 pm #35717
carpedebass, Yes they can do that but if your group understands that everything that is happening in a SHTF time(total collapse) every thing that happens maybe part of a coordinated offensive. I would not take lightly even a child coming my way in a time like this.
So you would have one or two in your group look over the child, the rest of the group is on the lookout(high alert) at the time. If the child looks like they are lost or there parents were killed then you are to still stay alerted for days after till you see that there is no sabotage planed by anyone.
But in the cities I see that all groups that are alive are targets because it means that there is food and water.
One problem I see is in your own group will everyone agree to take in a child or will they shoot everything that moves since they have been shot at by many and feel that everything that moves needs to be killed, no questions asked.February 3, 2015 at 7:09 pm #35718
<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>freedom wrote:</div>
One problem I see is in your own group will everyone agree to take in a child or will they shoot everything that moves since they have been shot at by many and feel that everything that moves needs to be killed, no questions asked.
Good answer. And that is a great question. It is also a question I do not have an answer to at this point. Initially, I would think we’d have to trust whomever makes the call to “shoot first.” I would hope everyone in my group would have the decency to at least humanize the question first. But as we all know…it’s going to have to be an instant decision. That decision will have to be supported. Questioning these decisions will result in indecision. I have spoken to my group and we have some general rules of engagement. There are always going to be gray areas. I will trust the decision the particular person makes at the time unless I start seeing a particular pattern of unnecessary violence.
As to the point of posting people to watch over the child, that’s a 24 hour job. That means you have to take two people away from other necessary tasks to watch a child that you cannot trust for days? Weeks? Months? I’m not saying that this is the wrong thing to do…just saying it may not be feasible.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.