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

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

rick boudrie wrote:
>>You're one of those who (at least at one time) liked the Thruhiking 
>>Papers.
>
>I thought they were excellent, and still do.  I know that at one time you 
>intended to update them subsequesnt to your PCT and CDT hikes.  I will be 
>most interested in readin the revisions, as I would be hard pressed to find 
>any areas for improvement.

Rick -
I started the revision 8 months ago - and got sidetracked by the job, house, 
kids, cars and other things ---- "life".  It may be time to get back to it.


>I know dangerous cities, and have experienced them.  In the 2 years 
>immediately prior to my thru-hike I was teaching in Bogota, Colombia.  I'll 
>save those experiences for another list.  I also had my leg broken here in 
>the states during a mugging.  I'll take my chances on the Trail any day 
>;-).

Yep - thought you might - given a choice so would I.


>I believe in one's God given right to defend himself by any means 
>neccesary.  I have also learned that criminals don't hesitate to pull the 
>trigger while the rest of us do.

Hmmm - you don't want to ascribe too much reluctance to some of us. There's 
a perception that the criminals are all experts with guns while the "good 
guys" are all total klutzes and incompetent with regard to guns or any form 
of self defense.  There are people and organizations (including the 
mainstream press) that push that idea in order to further their own 
political agendas (and there are more than one of those).  Somehow those 
people overlook the points that 1/ very few criminals know any more about a 
gun than which end the bullet comes out of and 2/ there are millions of 
Americans involved in hunting, shooting sports, martial arts, etc.  And more 
millions who have been in the military.  The basic assumption that only the 
police are capable of handling guns or otherwise frustrating criminal intent 
is terminally flawed.  Re Sept 11 - witness the failure of one of the 
hijacked aircraft to achieve its goal due to the actions of a small group of 
unarmed individuals.  Yeah - they died.  But a lot of others lived because 
of their actions.  Frankly, given a choice, I'd rather die doing something 
than like a sheep led to slaughter.  I'm a very ba-a-a-d sheep  :-))


>You are right, I don't think guns belong on the Trail.  Even in the hands 
>of our friends and associates.  They put me at risk, too.   But then again, 
>you may have more confidence in your friends and assoiciates than I do mine 
>;-).

If I didn't trust them, I wouldn't be hiking with them in any case - with or 
without guns.  If they're carrying (and some of them do), I generally know 
it - and I know what their capability is.


>>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.
>
>Huh?  There is a comparison here?  With men who would have robbed you and 
>would have asaulted your wife?  I don't get that.  I am not sure why you 
>put that in this post.

Of course there is.  They looked at us as "outsiders"/"different"/"tent 
people".  There was no understanding - nor desire for understanding - of 
what we were doing - only condemnation. It was no less a form of prejudice 
than judging someone by the color of their skin.  And in their minds, it 
justified anything they wanted to do.

Re trail runners - they don't "hike" in the same terms that most of those on 
this list do.  That makes them "outsiders"/"different"/"non-tent people".  
For some on this list, there is no understanding - nor desire for 
understanding - of what they're doing - only condemnation.  It is no less a 
form of prejudice than judging someone by the color of their skin.  And in 
the minds of those who think like that, it justifies anything they want to 
say.  For my part, I can only hope it doesn't justify action.

Read the last two paragraphs again - and then tell me there's not a direct 
parallel.  Blind prejudice is still blind regardless of the rationalization 
use to justify it.   :-)


>FWIW, I don't have a problem with runners on the AT.  I respect them.  I 
>also don't have a problem with those who would suggest that trail running 
>and adventure races is an inappropriate use of the AT in forums such as 
>this.  To suggest it is innapropriate to runner on the Trail would be 
>unconcionable, however.  Intimidation of other lawful users of the AT, no 
>matter how slight, is not ok in my book.

You may not have a problem - but others here, by their own words in the last 
discussion of the subject obviously do.  They need to do some thinking about 
that.


>Now, how about those updates!

OK - since you asked, I'll see what we can do.  Been thinking about that 
lately anyway - for other reasons that I can't explain right now, but which 
will become apparent later.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.