Hikers hogtie a man that try to take them hostage...

Well this is different.

Story:

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?id=100221

What a nimwit.

I camp on the Rone in the dead of winter, I dont see many poeple up and out the trail that time of year..(meet my ice axes)

Why,,,, why was he released.  Sounds like he is a danger to public safety.  Maybe he should have been released from the clink to the shrink.

LMAO...

I don't know that particular area, but this type of incident has been on the increase for years now.

Do a quick Google search for 'Meth labs in National Forests' and you will be astounded. There have been thousands of Meth labs and dump sites found in Southeastern National Forests in the past few years - as well as other places in the country.

Anyone who commits a violent crime, or a crime with a weapon should not be eligible for release pending trial IMO.

Mike G.

People are entitled to bail unless 1) they are a flight risk or 2) they are a danger to the community. In tis case, he has no prior record and that goes to his favor. instead he gets a higher bail. (not particularly high bail in my opinion.) Seems the judge decided that with his prior record and his cooperation, he was not that big a risk. Not saying I agree...just telling how it works.

Gifto, correct me if I'm wrong on the entitlement of bail thing. Isn't there a 3rd scenario where one could be denied bail- Murder 1(Capital Case?)

I was just under the assumption that there were 3 scenarios.

I gotta shake my head. Those nimwits that set those boobie traps that we were talking about got off so easy...

Any updates on those fools?

That is because of the flight risk and/or the danger to society. The logic there is that with nothing to lose, the community is at risk because if he tries to flee, he has no reason not to shoot his way out. But the fact that he committed a serious crime alone is not enough to deny bail.

Oh okay, that makes sense. Thanks. Much appreciated.

Maybe he the kidnapper the tight ropers should me made to attend a daily meeting until their trials.

What could we think up for that meeting ????????

This was/is a VERY scary situation and such incidents are on the rise all over North America. The problem is due to the huge addiction to various drugs, legal and illegal, that has become such an issue in society since the late '60s and we have it, in spades, here in BC.

This fellow apparently suffered a very severe traumatic incident and should NOT have been out there OR be packing a gun, of ANY type. But, this is the "ideal" and such regulations are impossible to enforce as Canada's extremely tight gun laws and our constant shootings here in Vancouver, sadly demonstrate.......

Thank God, all worked out well and I honestly hope this poor guy receives the longterm treatment and care he so obviously requires....hating an ill person for a deranged act will never "solve" these kinds of problems.

Go Coast Guard!

Another great use for parachute cord!

Like I often say, its the two-legged varmints on the trail that worry me most. 

I can’t help but be slightly embarrassed for East Tennesseans, yikes…

The timing is interesting in that I was just speaking to a
neighbor the other day that thru-hiked the AT in 2008 and he told me the only
place he felt worried about criminals was near Erwin TN
where this happened. Unfortunately, this proves his concerns were well founded.

Notice that it was at a place with vehicular access. I still
maintain that if you get far enough away from places where a vehicle can go,
the bad people aren’t energetic enough to get there.  I try to never camp near a road on any trail
for this reason.

I know Rambler has a story where someone stole all his gear
at a campsite while he was away (“traded” his nice gear for their crappy gear)
but I’ve personally never had a criminal issue in the backcountry.

I hate these stories, especially as close to home as this
one.

After going back and reading the article for the third time I came upon this comment below the artical which explains a bit more. It is very easy to judge when one only has part of the picture as to what and why it happened.

lucky4 writes:

May 11, 2012
4:06 PM

"For the record, this man is a part of my family. He is a very good man. He's a father of 2, and he was head pastor of a church (until this happened obviously). Owns his own company, very liked throughout community. He was very badly injured a few years back....electricuted, he shouldnt even be alive at this point. But through Gods grace he survived. He had a lot of damage, has seizures on a regular basis. Their home burned down on Christmas eve. This doesnt excuse what has happened. that was stupid, dangerous and scary. But, he's not all mentally intact anymore. His accident caused more problems than anyone could imagine. So, before people go on here and judge someone for things....maybe ya'll should pray about the situation. Pray and thank God no one got hurt. Thank God he held military people up instead of women and kids. Thank God those men knew what to do in order to not make things worse. Those men are trained for this stuff. Im not saying he needs to go un-punished, but he needs help, prayers, instead fo judgement. Im angry w/ him, but his family doesnt need all this. His oldest son graduates tonight....pray for their family."

I do not believe this absolves this man of the crimes he committed as they were/are very serious. It does seem/sound like he was a contributing member of society up until his accident. I think his bail was set to low considering the seriousness of his actions and the fact that I would at this time judge him to be a hazard to society at large. I hope that he receives the help that he needs. If it had to happen I'm glad that he picked the wrong people to take hostage and that they were quickly and easily able to subdue him without anyone getting injured. It most certainly could have ended in a very tragic manor.

As always, a thoughtful and wise comment from Brian and one I completely agree with.

While I am a "conservative" in almost all respects, I am very soft hearted toward the mentally ill and those with disabilities and this chap certainly is one so encumbered.

A "containment hospital" seems a better venue for him than a gaol and incidents like this strengthen my support for and belief in a "socialized" medical system where all can receive the treatment they require.

Dewey said:

As always, a thoughtful and wise comment from Brian and one I completely agree with.

While I am a "conservative" in almost all respects, I am very soft hearted toward the mentally ill and those with disabilities and this chap certainly is one so encumbered.

A "containment hospital" seems a better venue for him than a gaol and incidents like this strengthen my support for and belief in a "socialized" medical system where all can receive the treatment they require.

 I agree Dewey, I feel the same way.

Apeman makes a good point of course.

I am very concerned with public safety in cases like this one or similar ones, and although our legal system released him I don't consider it wise. That goes for this gentleman's safety as well, I do hope he receives the help he needs.

Mike G.

He's very lucky!!

Some of us "carry" when hiking and camp in the backwoods.

I saw that comment from his alleged family member also and the first thought that came to my mind was that if they care so much, why did they let him remain in that state. They share responsibility for what he did and the fact that he had a gun to do it with.

When my father passed several years ago, my mentally ill brother that was living with them flipped out as usual and started a fight with the rest of my family before i got there, then stormed out. The first thing I did when I arrived was to remove all my fathers guns from the house. One of the first things my Uncle said to me later that day was, "you don't let your brother get near your fathers guns..". A family that owns them shares a responsibility for them being used safely.

I had a friend back in high school that put me down as a reference for his firearms license application. I wrote on it that this applicant is not mentally stable and returned it to the police dept. They turned him down for the permits & I didn't feel bad about it at all.

A few years later, my unstable brother started getting out of hand. I went to where he was living, kicked the door in, took him by force to a hospital and signed the papers to have him held against his will before he hurt someone.

And yes, our "legal system" is equally at fault for turning someone with an obvious problem back on the street instead of admitting him to a hospital or treatment program.

Dewey, I have to say, I'm shocked to hear a "conservative" speak out for "socialized medicine" but applaud you for having the guts.

And yes, more often than not, it is the human animals that make other people want to "carry" on the trail.

Oh, really? I am dreadfully sorry that I have shocked you, but, we Canadians have a much different culture than you have in the USA; this is an aspect of life in North America, that seems unknown to many Americans.

Simply put, many of our social mores, customs and values are different from those in American society and our healthcare system is a fundamentally defining value of Canadian life. It is, as it happens, the most highly valued public aspect of our society and one which defines contemporary Canada perhaps more than any other.

The term, "conservative" has a very different connotation here than in the USA and we Canadian conservatives in the social and cultural sense, have rather different values than an American "republican" would hold. An example or two,would be that the very idea of the rabid evangelical Christian influence in national politics, so prevalent and accepted in the USA, is anathema to a Canadian, of any political stripe and such policies are considered "fascist" here.

Another example, is that "gay marriage" is not considered a big issue here due largely to the foregoing and many other such situations exist. The "gun issue"is a controversial and obvious one as our attitude toward guns is much different as well.

I am a "cultural conservative" as one might expect from a member of a pioneer family and this simply means one who is opposed to any dilution of our traditional heritage as a member of "The British Commonwealth"and to "non-traditional"immigration, foreign investment/ownership and sale of raw natural resources.

So, as you can see, mine is a conservatism based on much different values than that of an American of my age would be and there is little common ground between our values.

Apeman nice catch on the article

Dewey said:

Oh, really? I am dreadfully sorry that I have shocked you, but, we Canadians have a much different culture than you have in the USA; this is an aspect of life in North America, that seems unknown to many Americans.

Simply put, many of our social mores, customs and values are different from those in American society and our healthcare system is a fundamentally defining value of Canadian life. It is, as it happens, the most highly valued public aspect of our society and one which defines contemporary Canada perhaps more than any other.

The term, "conservative" has a very different connotation here than in the USA and we Canadian conservatives in the social and cultural sense, have rather different values than an American "republican" would hold. An example or two,would be that the very idea of the rabid evangelical Christian influence in national politics, so prevalent and accepted in the USA, is anathema to a Canadian, of any political stripe and such policies are considered "fascist" here.

Another example, is that "gay marriage" is not considered a big issue here due largely to the foregoing and many other such situations exist. The "gun issue"is a controversial and obvious one as our attitude toward guns is much different as well.

I am a "cultural conservative" as one might expect from a member of a pioneer family and this simply means one who is opposed to any dilution of our traditional heritage as a member of "The British Commonwealth"and to "non-traditional"immigration, foreign investment/ownership and sale of raw natural resources.

So, as you can see, mine is a conservatism based on much different values than that of an American of my age would be and there is little common ground between our values.

I find your post to be inappropriate, reprehensible  and offensive.

This is no place for bashing the USA, its form of government, its citizens, its religious preferences.

Your comments are not as 'subtle' as you might have thought.   Very thinly-veiled hostility is evident.

                               ~ r2 ~

Folks - please stay on topic.  On the other hand, I suppose the topic at hand is "what to do when you encounter a crazed Tennessean on the trail," so this advice is of limited value.  Let's not detour down the long, winding roads of nationalism, socialized medicine, liberalism or conservatism though - as these topics don't make for friendly conversation.

There is a topic here that deserves some conversation- just what do you do when you encounter someone truly wacky on the trail?

During my last AT hike, I encountered a gentleman near Erwin on the AT.  His glasses were broken, he smelt worse than your average thru-hikers, and he was carrying a ragged pink children's backpack and two grocery bags. I realized that it was late, and we were likely headed to the same shelter.  So, I did what I needed to do.  I ate two tablespoons of instant coffee, put on my hat and made it a 30-mile day well into the night to get FAR away from that person. What would you do?

There  was nothing hostile or ...bashing... about my comments, I merely stated some of the obvious differences between Canada and what we consider "conservative" and the USA and the meaning of that term in that country.

As it happens, my mother, one of my grandfathers and many other relatives of mine were born in the USA and I have many living relatives and friends there. I see many differences between Canadian and American cultures and I think that most other people see these as well.

As to Seth's ...gentleman..., I would probably have done as he did, not because of appearances, but, because I dislike rancid odors as much as I detest inter-personal violence.

So, given that it seems that camping anywhere you wish on the trail in question is not allowed and one cannot simply erect a personal shelter and keep away from others whom one may prefer to avoid, this is the only option to a night of "gas warfare", eh?

Ya know, one of the things that concerns me is the accessibility of the shelter areas here on the LHHT. 

One can pretty much pick a shelter site on the trail and drive to it. I mean I understand that this is needed for DCNR, Rangers, maintenance, blah blah blah but one is kinda stuck in regards to where one can set camp.

On trail camping is not permitted and one is only permitted to camp in designated shelter areas(as seen on the sign below at the nobo th on the LHHT in Ohiopyle.)

I do have to admit that I have broken the rules on more than one occasion when I was on trail and getting blasted with a really bad storm such as I did on my trip in January during a multi-mile night hike. 

I weighed the situation and just thought that soloing in the conditions I was in was just a bad idea and hunkering down was the best option being the wind was dropping branches left and right and I didn't have a helmet with me(which prolly wouldn't have made much of a difference.)

Sometimes ya just have to break the rules because the pros outweigh the cons if ya know what I mean.

(next morning)

Now back to my point in regards to accessibility.

When I camp at the shelter sites(which is about 99% of the time) I pick the furthest away most remote spot at the site that I can typically find.

I DO NOT use the trail shelters.  

Another thing is when I am choosing my gear I go with shelters that have a tendency to blend in with my surroundings(my tents are green and tan) and not a "hey I'm over here red, orange, or yellow."

(I am not knocking bright colors, they do have their benefits when one is in alpine, arctic, etc. conditions where being located could be the difference between life and death.)

I am also a fan of travelling in the winter months when I may see maybe 3 people at most on the trail for a 70-80 mile trek.

Accessibility as well as blending into your surroundings can play a big part in regards to the risks of running into someone that has bad intentions. 

We really do not have much trouble as far as situations like the one above happening(although I did have a window smashed out of my vehicle some years back and someone got some pretty nice gear from my loss.)

With that situation I feel I was somewhat to blame. Manufacturers stickers on my windows(MSR, Osprey, Leki, etc.) and dark tint probably didn't help much in regards to going "low key/unnoticed."

Live and learn...

Callahan said:

Why,,,, why was he released.  Sounds like he is a danger to public safety.  Maybe he should have been released from the clink to the shrink.

Definition of insanity: "A danger to himself or others".

Sounds like he meets both criteria.

Dewey said:

Oh, really? I am dreadfully sorry that I have shocked you, but, we Canadians have a much different culture than you have in the USA; this is an aspect of life in North America, that seems unknown to many Americans.

Dewey,

At first when I read your reply, I thought, "now how the hell did he draw insult from what i said?" Because I didn't intend it that way at all. But your explanation was well formed and enlightening. - I have to keep reminding myself your in Canada. And I totally agree on the Fascist state point, but as requested, going to stay out of politics here.

My apologies Seth, sometimes I'm the wizard of thread drift. That's what I get for posting to the forum at 1:00am after a 16 hour work marathon. Managed a little downtime today and not as wound up. I think I'm suffering woods withdrawal.

As to the "what would you do?"

I once had an obviously out of place dirtbag trying way too hard to be inconspicuous at a parking lot of a popular day hiking park follow me into the trail after he saw the camera gear I was toting. It was so obvious to me what was going on it was almost laughable. I would walk for a bit and stop & turn around to take a photo and there he was, keeping his distance, till we were further away from the parking area & people. I went through the same routine several times to be sure, cause I couldn't believe it myself. I would stop and turn suddenly with the camera, and he would stop quick and act like he was looking at something, and for however long I "took pictures" he waited till I started walking again. I was so shocked at the gall of this jerk, I just couldn't let it go. Being young & in my prime as well as well trained in hand to hand, I led him in to a place I knew that would be advantageous terrain for me & waited for him to catch up. He was pretty shocked when he turned a corner & saw me just sitting on a rock with my camera gear & pack next to me. Funny thing about the woods, they're always full of big sticks. Things didn't work out for him the way he planned that day.

These days, I'm older, I'd like to think a bit more mature and more than anything, I have a child & wife to care for out there, so I'm at least a little more docile. But then again, with my little one depending on me, I'm also a little more hyper-vigilant. Not that I've had any more encounters since then. Least not on the trail anyway.

Being aware of your surroundings is primary & having a mental plan ahead of time for how you would react to different situations, then drilling that in your mind can make a big difference if the time ever comes.

If nothing else, Bear spray is some pretty potent stuff... Doesn't have to be just for bears.

In your case, Seth, I would have done the same, just put distance between me and him.

I also don't sleep in the shelters ever or anywhere near them.

i have never entered the backwoods without a firearm and wouldnt question someones personal history if they tried to take me or my friends and family hostage.  Ones past can sometimes explain his actions but excuses fall on deaf ears when it comes to situations like this.

Dewey said:

Oh, really? I am dreadfully sorry that I have shocked you, but, we Canadians have a much different culture than you have in the USA; this is an aspect of life in North America, that seems unknown to many Americans.

Simply put, many of our social mores, customs and values are different from those in American society and our healthcare system is a fundamentally defining value of Canadian life. It is, as it happens, the most highly valued public aspect of our society and one which defines contemporary Canada perhaps more than any other.

The term, "conservative" has a very different connotation here than in the USA and we Canadian conservatives in the social and cultural sense, have rather different values than an American "republican" would hold. An example or two,would be that the very idea of the rabid evangelical Christian influence in national politics, so prevalent and accepted in the USA, is anathema to a Canadian, of any political stripe and such policies are considered "fascist" here.

Another example, is that "gay marriage" is not considered a big issue here due largely to the foregoing and many other such situations exist. The "gun issue"is a controversial and obvious one as our attitude toward guns is much different as well.

I am a "cultural conservative" as one might expect from a member of a pioneer family and this simply means one who is opposed to any dilution of our traditional heritage as a member of "The British Commonwealth"and to "non-traditional"immigration, foreign investment/ownership and sale of raw natural resources.

So, as you can see, mine is a conservatism based on much different values than that of an American of my age would be and there is little common ground between our values.

 OUr system is based on freedom and when one works to pay the goverment that decreases the amount of freedom the person has.   And this isnt a political tread, nor is it a website where one should critisize anothers nationality ironically while defending gay rights.  When your head is stuck so far up your politics its hard to think clearly.

peter1955 said:

Callahan said:

Why,,,, why was he released.  Sounds like he is a danger to public safety.  Maybe he should have been released from the clink to the shrink.

Definition of insanity: "A danger to himself or others".

Sounds like he meets both criteria.

 There is a definition for insanity and there is a legal definition for insanity and they are wildly different. A person who commits a crime and is set for bail is evaluated on the basis of his previous record, his likihood to flee, and his imediate danger to society. In a bail hearing taking place very soon after the incident, he will not have been afforded an evaluation and his Public Defender will have no information as to his mental stability unless he/she has dealt with him before. So, he is most likely to be given some level of bail. That is his constitutional right. We don't take away a person's liberty without a lot of reason to. I am so sorry this happened to the hikers and, as a conservative in the USA am also supportive of assitance to defendants who are experiencing these sorts of difficulties. I prosecute these guys and our courts look to Vetrans court, Drug court and Mental Health court to assits with people making bad choices, choices that they know are bad but their mental health feeds their bad choice. If evaluations deem them legally unable to assist in their defense, they are committed to a mental facility to get the help they need. That is a good thing. Then they are not out on the trail making more bad choices and harming themselves and others.

jock said:

Dewey said:

...mine is a conservatism based on much different values than that of an American of my age would be and there is little common ground between our values.

...this isnt a political tread, nor is it a website where one should critisize anothers nationality ...

Thank you Jock. Canada and the US have different cultures in many respects, but Dewey's values are not necessarily shared by all Canadians. And this isn't the place to indulge in political rhetoric.

I like to think we're all here because of what we have in common, not because of our differences.

giftogab said:

...Then they are not out on the trail making more bad choices and harming themselves and others....

It sounds like you have a difficult and  thankless job. Most of us never have to deal with these people at all, and have no real understanding of what's involved. I guess all anyone can do as part of the judicial system is to keep on plugging away at it and try to fix what you can.

And this isn't the place to indulge in political rhetoric.

I like to think we're all here because of what we have in common, not because of our differences.

peter1955 is correct - it's easy to loose sight of the interests and ideas we have in common if we head down the road of debating ideology.

Please sign in to reply