Law of the Land

G

Gautier

Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
461
I noticed a quote here in someone's tagline that I hadn't seen in quite some
time and was pleasantly surprised. HotrodKelley's tagline quotes;
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."-John Adams

Now I've always been a fan of quotation myself, and believe that if you look
long enough and hard enough, everything has been said before. I could
recite from memory probably hundreds of my favorites, but quotation is
no substitute for thinking, and what better way to get people thinking than
to have a discussion.

I know it sounds somewhat political, and if the mods see fit to move it to
that section, I'll certainly understand. I think, however, that it has a place
here. Most of us are law abiding citizens I would imagine, at least to the
greater extent. I've seen a few posts from people citing that certain things
are illegal, unless a "survival situation" warrants the use of a technique,
item, or practice. (I'm long winded, I know, bear with me though...I hope I
have a point)

Fishing and hunting licenses, use of snares/traps/gillnets, a fire in a
non-designated area/during a burn-ban. These are all things that are
regulated by "man's laws", and some of them for good reasons. Not everyone
is responsible with campfires, not everyone takes only the food they need, etc.

I guess what I'm asking is; At what point do we decide to abandon the laws
of man, and obey the laws of nature. At what point do we say, all men are
created equal, and so can't deny another of their right to food, warmth, or shelter.
Who determines the severity of a situation? When do you think a situation
merits the use of "illegal" means to "survive"?

Gautier
 
I don't think there's a cookie cutter answer to that. Something that may be life threatening in a certain circumstance may not be in another. It really is up to the person to figure out if you should break the law or not for EACH incident. On the fly if you will. Hopefully I'll make the decision before things get too far gone and I'm just too late. Getting too cold that my hands can't build a fire during a burn ban etc.
 
I agree with that, ultimately it will be an individual decision. I also agree with your preemptive attitude about it, I'm of the same theory on that.

As a for instance; Having your dayhike extended by foul weather, forcing you to seek shelter, and perhaps procure safe drinking water may not fall into the category of a "survival situation".
Can you go without the water, without boiling it, without the shelter? Possibly so for all of the above, but I'm probably going to build a shelter, scout for water, and make a fire to boil it, just to be sure. National Forest laws about harvesting wood, burn ban, and weatherman be damned. I want to know that if the rain/snow/wind picks up or comes in, I'm not building a shelter in the dark. That I'm well hydrated BEFORE I get in a situation where I need water, and so forth.

Ofcourse, that is just my opinion, I'm not advocating illegal activity just for the sake of it. If it's 70 degrees and fair skies, you can most likely get by without fire and shelter. If you know the path out and stayed hydrated through the hike, and it's just nightfall that kept you in. You probably can go without procuring water.

Gautier
 
Gautier,

I concur. I try to keep my head on the logical course and avoid running down the emotion path, screaming. If there's a chance I may lose my life, then the hell with the laws.

Steve
 
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of natural rights theories as they are generally not on very sound logical foundations.

That having been said, if you're in a situation where your life is in danger, don't worry so much about laws and/or morals, do what you must to survive.
 
I agree with the above posts. I think everyone should also take into account there are "degrees of severity" in the laws that are broken and we cannot forget the morality of the situation. Starting a fire during a burn ban to stay warm and not freeze to death is acceptable, killing a person to take his/her food so you don't starve is not. "To educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menance to society" - Teddy Roosevelt.
 
This is a good question--and I vote that it stays here in the Survival forum, for what little my vote is worth.

I'll add this interesting twist. The question "at what point do we decide to abandon the laws of man, and obey the laws of nature? . . . When do you think a situation merits the use of 'illegal' means to 'survive'?" must be answered, in part, "at least a little while before the bulk of other people decide that that time has come, as well." Let's say that, like most people, you live in a sizeable town or city. Your job and society more or less demand that you commute into work each day without fail and put in your time before going home. Now let's say a disaster is approaching--be it a highly-contagious fatal disease, or Hurricane Katrina, or an ICBM cooked up by some wacko not-too-distant-future government in Iran or North Korea or Pakistan. If you wait to ditch your job and pack your kids in the truck and head for the hills until most of the other folks in your town do so, you will be stuck in the Mother of All Traffic Jams when it really hits the fan. Not good. Or let's say you're a Jewish guy in early-Nazi-period Germany: history seems to indicate that even the Nazis didn't make the full horror of their intentions immediately clear; they started out with a series of increasingly-strict restrictions on Jewish people's liberty, first removing the abilities to fight back or escape before removing the ability to stay alive.

In short, I'd add that a KEY PART of formulating the correct answer to this question is that you have to make your decision significantly before the average guy does. And by so doing, you are likely to stand out as a wrongdoer more than you would if you left the socially-acceptable path after the collapse/catastrophe had made the majority of people just shrug off such behavior. That being the case, there is going to be a premium on subtleness and non-obviousness. As the first "lawbreaker", you're disproportionately likely to be targeted by law enforcement, martial-law types, etc.--and to be JAILED during the full-fledged disaster, if not worse. Say your hypothetical disaster involves a severe food shortage; you predict that at some stage of the disaster the government is going to step in and announce that hoarding (or refusing to give up your food hoard) is punishable by national guard firing squad. It's easy for your actions in buying large quantities of food in preparation to attract attention if you're the only guy doing it--whereas if everybody's carrying 50-pound bags of beans out of the store, you're likelier to be lost in the crowd. See what I'm getting at?
 
Similarly, a lot of the answer has to be in thinking through the likely disasters, and playing a lot of hard-thought-out "what if?" games.

What if there were a repeat of the 1918 Bird Flu, and I had kids in school? At what point do I pull my kids out? Probably the answer is "before the school system itself decides to shut down because 10% of the kids are in the hospital and 95% of the rest have been exposed to the virus already." If so, are you set up to homeschool your kids until the disease burns itself out on your kids' classmates?

What if (as happened here a few years back) there's just ONE gasoline pipeline through which your multi-million-people-population big city gets ALL of its gas--and that pipe starts leaking and gets shut down. What do I depend on gas for? My car for? What if I get the word a bit late and ALL the spare gas cans at all the stores are bought up?

What if it happens during the summer? The winter? What is the likely government reaction to the disaster? At what point is that government response itself going to break down due to societal collapse? What if it lasts for more than six months?

What if it's a low-level disaster, and there's still some important advantage to keeping one's day job?
 
In response to the comparison and contrast of making a fire during a burn ban, and killing someone for their food. I'm not suggesting abandoning morality. Certainly there are plain degrees of severity, and some that are more subtle. I for one am willing to bend and even break laws that are arguably trivial and asinine in their foundations.

I see a distinct difference between an arsonist starting a forest fire, and a man responsibly maintaining a fire for warmth or cooking food. I see a distinct difference between poaching animals to near extinction for hide and profit, and a man that takes a snared game animal or two for food purposes.

As for the natural or manmade disasters, that sort of keeps in line with the premise of severity. There are definitely some interesting responses so far, on various ends of the spectrum and in between. I look forward to hearing some more discussion on it, and opinions.

Gautier
 
In most jurisdictions, the "law of man" allows a defense of "necessity." Under the doctrine of "necessity, where breaking a law is actually essential (sometimes "reasonably thought to be" essential) to avoid the risk of a greater harm/wrong AND the defendant did not intentionally create the risk, the otherwise criminal act is excused.

Or as the old boy said, "Better judged by twelve than buried by six."
 
I agree that most cases will vary but I think many people on this site have already taken the first step towards these "Laws of Nature"

We carry Matches and shelter building tools, on day hikes even during Burn Bans. We own Firearms and learn to use them even in areas where that is considered un PC. We carry knives despite the fact that groups like the red cross advise us not to.

I keep fuel in my car and some gear available so I dont have to rush as much the average shmo will in a shtf type scenario, I try to plan alternate routes out of town, including hiking trails and waterways. I don't know that I am prepared to be the first law breaker, but I will do all I can as far as planning and preparation to make sure that I have a leg up on the others when the times come.

We may all be trying to get out of town at the same time, but you wont catch me stuck in line at the grocery store, gas station or gun store. and you won't catch me runnning out of town half prepared, If the roads are clogged I will try a pre planned alternate, or simply hold up in my stocked home, or at one of the other alternative shelters I have pre planned.

I dont know for sure that I will be better off than anyone else if the "Big One" comes, But I have managed to avoid the masses, in many of the smaller ones like blizzards, Noreasters and hurricanes by being a little bit prepared, and having a plan.
 
Return of the J.D. said:
In short, I'd add that a KEY PART of formulating the correct answer to this question is that you have to make your decision significantly before the average guy does. And by so doing, you are likely to stand out as a wrongdoer more than you would if you left the socially-acceptable path after the collapse/catastrophe had made the majority of people just shrug off such behavior. That being the case, there is going to be a premium on subtleness and non-obviousness.
Click to expand...

EmsRescueGuy said:
I dont know for sure that I will be better off than anyone else if the "Big One" comes, But I have managed to avoid the masses, in many of the smaller ones like blizzards, Noreasters and hurricanes by being a little bit prepared, and having a plan.
Click to expand...

Both of you fellows hit the nail on the head. If you'll allow me to use an analogy...

Any competent martial arts or unarmed combat instructor will tell you that AVOIDING conflict is infinitely preferable to fighting, even if you're highly trained, etc. etc., because once the first punch is thrown, or (worse) a weapon is pulled, you're stacking your training and experience against the law of probability as well as "The" law. The most incompetent mugger can still catch you off guard, your highly-trained foot can slip on something, or whatever, and you're in serious trouble.

Similarly, I believe that, as one of my profs in college used to say, "No amount of planning can ever replace dumb luck." Practicing survival skills, reading up on survival strategies and stocking gear and supplies are very important -- I do it; I know most everyone on this forum does it -- but if disaster strikes, you need to be ready to make the best decisions you can with limited information, time, and psychic energy.

If a hurricane strikes your coastal city, you can't alter its path, but as EmsRescueGuy notes, you can acknowledge that you live in a hurricane zone and factor hurricane supplies, evacuation plans, etc. into your life. As Return of the JD notes, sometimes, you have to be ready to jump before the other guy in order to survive not only the immediate threat but also the aftereffects.

I always take fictional accounts of survival with a grain of salt, but two films I've seen this year that are worth watching are The Trigger Effect and Panic in Year Zero. Both deal with the protagonists agonizing over when an how to react to disaster, and the dangers that are posed by others who are making the same analysis.
 
To the best of my knowledge we have a common law right to break any law if we think we are in danger of death or injury. So long as there is not a legal alternative, and you report what you've done to the authorities as soon as possible, you can break the law to save life and limb.

You may not only have to do the things you guys are talking about, like illegal campfires, poaching or building shelters in protected wilderness, but you could also have to steal a car to escape a disaster area (lots of cases of this during the Katrina evacuation,) break into a closed hotel or cabin seeking shelter and a phone, sabotage a phone line to lure a repair crew (and, ultimately, rescue) or steal food or clothing.

As far as I know you can break any law in a life or death situation, with a couple of exceptions. If it was committing a crime that got you into the bind in the first place (trespassing, poaching, escaping arrest) this clause does not apply; you're on the hook for every law you had to break to get through it. Also, your actions cannot harm anyone or put anyone at risk unless it is that person, not just the situation, that is putting you in imminent danger.

I'm not a lawyer, and your local laws may vary, but around here the right to survive trumps pretty much everything except another person's civil rights.
 
swedishdwarf said:
To the best of my knowledge we have a common law right to break any law if we think we are in danger of death or injury.

As far as I know you can break any law in a life or death situation, with a couple of exceptions.

I'm not a lawyer, and your local laws may vary, but around here the right to survive trumps pretty much everything except another person's civil rights.
Click to expand...


I dont know where you live but you have no "Right" to break laws in any area that I know of and you still can face prosecution for any infractions, even if they occur during a time of strife. You just have to decide for yourself if breaking that law at that moment is worth the risk, and likewise law enforcement has to decide if enforcing that law at that moment is the best off for the greater good.
 
28340_w.jpg


I follow leave no trace and try to respect valid regulations. But sometimes....
 
EmsRescueGuy said:
I dont know where you live but you have no "Right" to break laws in any area that I know of and you still can face prosecution for any infractions, even if they occur during a time of strife. You just have to decide for yourself if breaking that law at that moment is worth the risk, and likewise law enforcement has to decide if enforcing that law at that moment is the best off for the greater good.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, in New Jersey the "necessity" defense is codified as N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 2C:3-2(a)(2002). This may not create a "right" to violate the criminal law or eliminate all risk of adverse consequences, but it prevents any punishment if a jury agrees that the requirements of the statute were satisfied.
 
I determine my actions, but I am prepared to accept the consequences of my decision. If I have to decide between a life saving action vs. jail or fine my decision will be easy. I like the saying 'I'd rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6'
 
"The Bible is the Book upon which this REPUBLIC rests"-Andrew Jackson, Seventh President of the United States
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppresion, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."-Noah Webster
People seem to have forgot that AMERICA started out as a REPUBLIC. It is now a democracy which is dangerous because it is a ONE vote system as opposed to a Republic, which is a THREE vote system. Three votes to check tyranny, not just one.
"Those people who are not governed by GOD will be ruled by tyrants."-William Penn
 
I always liked this one.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin .

gse_multipart45187.jpg
 
There are Laws of Man that are irrelevent under emergency circumstances, because violating them has no effect on anyone else, and there are Laws of Man that are very relevent, because they safeguard other peoples' rights.

If you are leaving N'Orleans with Katrina approaching, and you exceed the speed limit with no police or other cars around, so what? If you hoard food to pack into your truck to take out of town with you, half the food left unbought -- or unlooted -- gets washed out to sea anyway, so what?

If you make a fire to hold off hypothermia but take the expert trouble to build a pit, clear the area, hold down the sparks, you aren't endangering people or places, whatever the law says.

But referring to the Laws of Nature is VERY tricky. We know what the Laws of Man are -- they are in thick volumes filling libraries. :) But we are generally familiar with the basic rules they mandate.

What does Nature mandate? Kill or be killed? Rudyard Kipling wrote a famous poem called The Law of the Jungle. It's a series of rules for a wolf pack, and it counsels cooperation and courtesy as a way of life.

What each of us might do, or think we might do, in harsh circumstances, is a great unknown. Until you and your family, your children, are at death's door, you don't know what you would feel is acceptable, in taking from other people.

Nature's Law says survive. Cooperation works best, but it's not always an option.


We must cooperate, and compete,
Take what we need, and share;
And if we take more than we need,
When we need it, it won't be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top