[at-l] Re: Law in the Jungle WAS: Stiffed by Hiker & Murder indictment.

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

"rick boudrie" wrote:
>While I admire you sense of resourcefullness in this situation, I think 
>that it may have been better to report these men to the police anyway, 
>considering that you believed these men would have robbed you, and raped 
>your wife.

Rick -
Let's start with a different question - how did I know what they planned?

Answer - when a man comes into your camp AFTER setting up a friend with a 
rifle to cover the camp, you know he's not friendly.  How unfriendly?  When, 
as his opening, he asks if you've got guns, you know you're in deep kimchee. 
  If, as some people would do, you answer "no", then your ass is grass and 
he'd be the lawn mower.  Unless you're willing to do something drastic, he 
can do anything he wants, take anything he wants.  Now --- what HAS he done? 
  Or rather, what DID he do?

Answer - nothing.  He "took reasonable precautions" against people who are 
itinerants (in both his eyes and those of the local law), he asked a 
question - and he made some rude, nasty remarks.

Uh, Rick - what are you gonna tell the cops?

Do you remember the reception I got when my wife and kids were threatened - 
something I had witnesses to prove?

Fact is that we might not have gotten away with it if they'd known Ginny was 
there when they first showed up.  But they were drunk, Ginny stayed quiet, 
and they didn't figure out she ws there until after they'd left, decided we 
didn't have guns - and realized that with 2 tents, 3 packs outside and only 
2 male voices, there had to be a woman there.  Speculation?  I think not.  
Anytime you want to talk about what you might call a "sixth sense", we can 
do that.  Or maybe you could ask thru-thinker about the "attitude" he ran 
into when he was accused?  I think he'll know what I mean.


>While law enforcement may have chosen to do nothing, you could not have 
>been privy to all the possible things going on in the rural communities 
>near where this took place.  Had there been a series of crimes there?  Had 
>the town had a child abducted in the area?  Had the sheriff recieved other 
>reports over time?  Of robbery?  Of rape?  Were there known trouble makers 
>that might be delt with or watched?
>
>Like you, I am sometimes am cynical about law enforcement. I believe you 
>are probably right that the police would have simply ignored your story.  
>Or been unable to do much with it had they wanted too.   But the operative 
>word is probably.

No - the operative word is - nothing.  That's what happened because we 
packed up and left before they had a chance to think about the situation (we 
were totally packed and gone within 5 minutes).  There was no incident - 
there was nothing to report except my "sixth sense" and some suspicion and a 
situation that broke no law, and was entirely explainable under a reasonable 
scenario.  Intent is not a crime.  Nor is rudeness.  Nor is asking those 
kind of questions.  Nor is "taking reasonable precautions against 
itinerants".  Sometimes unfortunately.

So - there's nothing I could tell a cop that would be believable. So was the 
situation "real?  Yep - as real as a heart attack.  And just as dangerous.  
Let's hope y'all never have to deal with anything like it. If you do, I 
promise you'll have a different view of carrying guns on the trail.  You may 
not do it (I don't) but you'll think about it a lot more seriously (and 
favorably).  You're one of those who (at least at one time) liked the 
Thruhiking Papers - think about what I said there - the best weapon you've 
got is your legs --- if you're smart enough to use them.


The stakes surrounding these
>things are simply too high not to report them to law enforcement.  The 
>"expected value" of making a report might have been higher than it seamed 
>at first blush.  I am speaking generally, of course, since I can not know 
>the specifics of the story which you have related.  I wasn't there, and am 
>just reacting to your post rather than the reality of your specific 
>situation.

All that being said - I understand where you're coming from --- but I also 
understand that you're coming from a viewpoint that assumes "civilized" 
behavior, ready availability to police, the kind of "protection" that comes 
with "cities".  But there are places where it ain't always there.  Some of 
those places are even IN those cities  :-)

Some free advice - if you ever do the CDT - stay far away from Wamsutter.  
It's another place where they don't like "our kind".  It's a form of 
discrimination - prejudice, if you will.

Kinda like those who don't like AT runners because they do something 
different than we do.  Some of us need to think about that one.

Walk softly,
Jim




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com