What About a Loose Cannon?

OK,,,here's the scenario that bothers me the most to ponder because I can never bring it to a conclusion that is even a little bit acceptable.

Let's say that the worst has happened and is continuing to happen all over. Anarchy rules. You're ok so far because you managed to get to a remote location with your gear and supplies intact. You're surrounded by a circle of the most important people in your life and able to hold out pretty much as long as you can remain un-detected.

The problem is that one of these people is a real loose cannon who won't get with the program and as a result the group is at needless risk of being found out. The whole group has exhausted all possibilities of persuasion and is in real danger because of it. How would you deal with it?

Loose cannons need to be contained.

Are there any societies or countries that do not have some type of confinement system for those that may be a danger to the community?

Chaos begets more chaos. Your new community must have leaders, rules and ways to deal with those that endanger the group.

I personaly don't think certain forms of anarchy, etc. would be bad at all, the Native Americans practiced tribilism very similar, if not the same as, Anarcho-Primitivism, and did fine.

Pertaining to the question I guess it would depend on who this person was, and this sounds bad but are they expendable, obviously if they're say your son, or your niece no. The best way to handle this would probably be having a vote with everyone in your "community", on how to handle them. I would handle it like this, first off have a vote to let them live or kill them, then from there if living wins have a vote like say, banishment from the community, or containment. Although that's just an example I would avoid killing them at all costs, life is important especially after a disaster.

But the simple, obvious answer is: eliminate them. What else would you do?
If anarchy reigns, why would you continue to abide by some defunct legal restraints?
OK, so maybe you give them a warning, emphasizing the point with a physical reinforcement, but if they still refuse to get with the program...

Let's say it's your adult son/daughter and banishment is not a viable option because it's someone who talks too much. I'm thinking banishment, then clear out as far and as fast as you can. That's still not a good choice but the best I can come up with.

My first thought was to kill them. I was thinking with my head and my heart took over. Also didn't want to come off as to harsh as I am new to this forum.

In the future I will speak my peace .... if it's offensive or against ATS policy I will stand corrected and change me evil ways.

After thinking about it more I'm not sure myself, elimination of someone in your tight nit group even if they are putting all of your lives at risk would probably destroy the moral of everyone by sort of putting a finality on the situation everyone uncomfortable with the way things have become would most likely loose all hope.

Moving because of them might not be worth the risk, and chances are in this situation banishment would be a death sentance anyways.

So I would probably just keep trying to talk some sense into them, and if that fails, I'm not sure, maybe someone will know some sulution.

dizziedame, I thought your original response was excellent. As for thinking with your head and then your heart took over, what way would you rather have it be? Your head insures your survival and your heart insures your humanity. Neither is worth much without the other. I think you got it in the right order as well.

This is a situation that a great many of us will be faced with whether or not we recognize that now. For me it's likely and probably my greatest survival fear. If it comes to that it will be the one time in my life that making a mistake is not an option. I suspect I'm not alone in that fear.

reply to post by SemperParatus

---

as much as I am against forcing medication on people now, in that type of situation, I would see a need to keep them on heavy drugs, perhaps a mixture of hooch and pills.

killing a person, because they are freaking out that anarchy just broke loose - that's a bit overboard, haha. I mean come on, you guys are getting a little drastic, even for a hypothetical. It's perfectly normal to assume some people would not be able to handle it, and would all begin to crack eventually - especially if they just voted to kill a few of the friends / family that probably in the process of all this saved their life in some way...

Tie their a$$ up and gag them. Beat the Holy be-Jesus out of them. Drug them. Feed them only when necessary. Assign someone to watch them 24/7. When all else fails - cut them loose and bug out. That's if it was my beloved relative.

If it is someone more distant, cut them loose and bug out as a first option. Termination as a second option. No guilt.

If the person is a loose cannon then banishment is a bad idea...So you banish them and bug out. More than likely anywhere you bugout to has been talked about as a bckup plan...Now little johny is really mad!!!

Now months later he shows up outta nowhere to exact his revenge and kills you. He knows the ins and outs of your security and anything else that an outsider would not be privy too.

So what do you do with them?

Killing is extreme and mistreatment is likely to push them evenfarther over the edge...

What makes it harder it is your family...WOW...you guys are tuff!!!! My son...never in a million years!!!!

I would put them in a place to do as little harm as possible and always with someone they respect.

Killing someone would be the very last resort and (in my opinion) banishment a close second if not worse...it would depend on the person. Find out what makes him tick and exploit it..A little psychology could go a long way...dunno how I would react...maybe take everyones advice and shut my mouth!

or let my wife do the cooking..no because I would be the only one left

[edit on 21-9-2007 by kaferwerks]

reply to post by SemperParatus

---

The good of the many outweighs the good of the one. What needs to be done must be done.

See what I mean? There is no easy answer and possibly no real solution. There's no telling how many soldiers have been shot by their own platoon for that very reason. As survivalists we all like to believe that because of our knowledge and preparations we'll be in charge of whatever group we're in. I'd guess that for those who are up to the task that will be the case. For those who are not it won't be. Maybe that shouldn't be a leadership decision but rather a group decision.

Maybe for the sake of the group and my conscience it would be best to just take that person with me and leave the group. It's all excellent posts so far. Keep 'em coming.

Historically, that choice has been faced before. Take for example Kings who have had their son(s) revolt against them (and by this I mean open armed revolt). Some of them responded by banishment, some by execution, imprisonment, etc.
It really depends on how hard-core the leader is. Do they feel a greater need to preserve the status quo or does sentiment force their hand?
As for me, I don't think I could ever take too drastic of an action against my own child. That twist makes this hypthetical even harder.

hmm tuff one
I believe that the punishment should fit the crime, no matter who it is.
first offense should be three days banishment. Second offense should be one month banishment. third offense should be either permanent banishment or death, depends again on the offense.
A loose Cannon puts the whole group at risk, its only fare that the group return the favor, or get rid of the problem.

You could always use more meat in a disaster situation. A little jimBob soup never hurt anyone....

As a first action, I'd go for the 'Gitmo' method...blindfolded, earfolded, gagged and bound. That would restrain the individual in lieu of a detention-cell and prevent them overseeing/hearing further discussion on what should be done or if they have irrevocably endangered the groups immediate location, plans and routes for relocation.

If their actions were unintentionally dangerous and selfish (such as stealing food/supplies for themselves) as an emotional reaction to the sudden sit-X upheaval and inability to adjust, they should be brought before the rest of the group to account for their actions and immediately be kept out of any sensitive meetings/activities to avoid further breaches of trust.

As punishment I'd have them be given basic labour-intensive tasks around camp, have group voting-rights removed, and access to weapons/firearms removed. At the same time I'd make sure they were overseen by at least one member at all times during the period of punishment and regular discussions had with the individual as to why such action is being taken against them to help them understand the need for trust and co-operation amongst all members to ensure everyone survives together.

If they had been wilfully and maliciously dangerous towards other members, or deliberately attempted to sabotage rations/supplies/plans, then they should be taken ear/eyefolded/gagged/hand-tied to a far away location from camp and left without shoes or any equipment and left in the wilderness to fend for themselves

Kill him, If a situation X occurs you have better things to spend your time on then watching someone and watching your back all the time, by this time its likely one more death won't change anything and might keep your small group that bit safer.

Depends on the level of disruption. You can't afford to have someone guard the loose cannon, but they can definitely be put in stocks or even in a small solid structure. It's best to look at older forms of punishment (NOT torture) in these cases. The only time the death penalty should be applied is if they willfully killed, maimed, or raped someone else in the community. Then a trail by peers will decide if the death penalty is warranted. However, if it is determined that execution is the answer, do it there in full view of the court and spectators. People remember images more than words, it will highly discourage the probability of having to do it again.

I'm also partial to the old Jewish punishment given to captured warriors and military leaders. Cut the thumbs and big toes off. Then they can't carry a weapon, but they can still work the earth to be productive. They can't run off and ferment rebellion, but they can walk down to get water. It wouldn't matter how much they still hated you, they would be nearly helpless to act on it.

This is a very stupid idea. This doesnt make good nonsense. You dont ,in such a situation, have an abundance of drugs or medication just sitting around to waste on the undiciplined.

I just purchased two fifths of Bacardi 151 and stashed them away. These are for options ...emergency medical etc...not for recreational drinking or the undiciplined. I also have other medical supplies stashed away...neither are these supplies for the undiciplined.

What some of you dont seem to realize...is that the scenerio paints a picture of someone undiciplined and a risk whether they stay or go.

This is not a choice of what to wear out on the town on Friday night.

Another poster is correct...your humanity can get you killed too.

It is a tough choice no doubt. I wonder how many of you have ever worked in an enviornment where you can be killed or maimed for life..knowing you have to go back there tomorrow and work? In this type of enviornment you must be very choosy as to who works with you and not. I have had to make this choice with people in whom I did not feel confident. In a scenerio like this I will make the choice again. You weed them out quickly and without hesitation. When the moment comes ..this will not be just a semantic exercise.

I have put my own brother out on the street after living with me in a manner for which he became a risk as well as high maintenance...and he was a diabetic too. It came down to ...his diabeties was his responsibility as well as his lifestyle. It was not his option while I am struggling for both of us.

You are describing someone here who suddenly becomes very high maintenance...by non virtue of risk. Think it through.

Thanks,
Orangetom