8 ms·
Outlaw Country
- davidw 7y agoSad, yet fascinating - reminds me a bit of this story about 'off the grid' people in Colorado: https://harpers.org/archive/2019/08/the-last-frontier/ https://harpers.org/archive/2019/08/the-last-frontier/ I happened on ads for those lots myself when looking around Zillow for odd or interesting places. You can see a bunch of them here: https://bit.ly/33tqbVM https://bit.ly/33tqbVM Even Klamath Falls doesn't have a great reputation in Oregon. Life that far out has got to be rough.
- kevinherron 7y agoScrolling this page causes Safari CPU usage to jump to ~120% and the fans in my MBP to turn on...
- P_I_Staker 7y agoThat is the most compelling thing I've read in a long time.
- pionerkotik 7y agoInteresting read. Reminded me of the nearby Humboldt County, California. Similarly remote, rugged, quite lawless and attracting people who want to stay hidden. It also the focus of California's secretive marijuana industry. There is a good documentary series about it: https://www.netflix.com/ee/title/80217475 https://www.netflix.com/ee/title/80217475
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>Selecting a jury in Taylor’s case was tricky. There was a raft of potential bias or conflict of interest... Half a dozen potential jurors had concealed-carry permits, all reportedly for self-protection. God forbid the jury include anyone who's ever had to mentally grapple with the possibility they might be in a situation like that. The whole trial smells of a prosecution that has lofty and unrealistic ideas about the immediate relevance of its authority in BFE. Last time I checked murder required intent. I don't see intent here.
- markbnj 7y ago> God forbid the jury include anyone who's ever had to mentally grapple with the possibility they might be in a situation like that. Which situation? The one where you move to a remote wilderness locale, ransack your neighbor's property, and then shoot him twice in the back? Or the one where you fatally misjudge the shotgun wielding newcomer you're trying to bully? Makes me glad I live in civilization. Think I'll pop down to Wawa for a soda.
- iron0013 7y agoWow, I'm not sure I've ever read a story where every single character was so utterly unsympathetic before. These are the same kind of folks who routinely drag their scummy world view into civilization by throwing racist rallies in Portland.
- neilv 7y agoI read the whole thing, and found most of the characters sympathetic. Also, I don't recall seeing any references to racism in the article. However, and I mean this constructively, when you said "these are the same kind of folks who", that sounded like an unfair generalizing prejudice, a bit like racism. I suppose, the next time we see someone on Twitter advocating strength, self-reliance, self-determination, etc., it just might be that they, like the main character in this story, actually felt none of those things in their real life, and are desperate because the social contract is failing them.
- dymk 7y ago> Over a few months in late 2012, the content of Taylor’s Facebook posts shifted from topics like trucks and music to videos from the hacktivist group Anonymous and posts about pandemic disease, the threat of GMO foods, the rise of Islam, and the Obama administration’s purported plans to confiscate everyone’s guns. “Rise of Islam” is just a dog whistle for Islamophobia. The guy sounds like he fell into, or near, the conspiracy theory/paranoia/alt-right hole.
- davidw 7y agoYes, definitely. The man has issues, both major and minor. That said, I think he comes across as a bit more deserving of some pity because he was not, in fact, going to racist marches in Portland, but off doing his own thing just trying to get by; something he doesn't seem to be particularly successful at.
- dymk 7y agoI have sympathy for the man - not a lot, because I strongly suspect he'd hate me for my own ideologies, but I certainly can empathize with wanting to defend yourself when your life is threatened. And I do believe that he had little choice but to shoot Roy. My sympathy is tempered, though, by his willing decision to move outside of the safety net of society, then expect that he'd have society's support when he had no money, food, or means of transportation. Ultimately, his desire to be self sufficient put him in a situation where he had to kill a man to protect himself. That's not a situation I'd wish on anybody, but he seemed pretty steadfast in making sure he had no other options.
- otterley 7y agoMy favorite quote: "The social contract is not a buffet—if you opt out because you want absolute freedom, you have to accept that no one will come to save your ass when trouble starts." Reminds me a bit of the cryptocurrency market. :-)
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoYou could just as easily argue it the other way and that the problem in this story is that society wants to retroactively enforce the "social contract" after he solved his problems on his terms. Yeah, you shouldn't murder people but if someone credibly threatens your life multiple times and "society" is no help "society" doesn't get to complain that they were facing the wrong way when you shot them. Edit: Since apparently I'm so wrong does anyone care to explain why?
- kls 7y agoYou are not, those people choose to be up there and with it there comes an element of extreme anti-social personality types. Society tends to look at these groups as well at least we don't have to deal with them and as long as they stay up there, then let them sort it out among themselves. The sad reality is that had he buried the body and been "hardened" like the rest of them, it would have not caused an issue for the local sheriff and the sheriff would have most likely just ignored it unless someone came around making an issue over it. I have been in these kinds of environments in FL, when I was a child the everglades and the glades-men where frontier territory and they are a hardened lot, they will kill you, especially if they have an issue and get themselves worked up while drunk. One of the most dangerous occupations, back then, was being a Florida game warden, due to these types. We had them go missing all the time back in the early 70's and 80's. Everyone up there, in this story said, he was going to kill him had Taylor not acted and at the point that a person brought a 55 gallon barrel and a buddy to tell me I was going in it, I personally would have been plotting how I was going to kill him in self defense before he killed me. I honestly do not believe I would have let either of those men leave my property that day standing on their feet. I don't say that to sound "Internet Tough" but rather to highlight, given my experience in frontier areas, the mentality I would have been in and the mentality I would assume a guy like Taylor would be in. The reality is that the law was not coming to save him, and given the repeated incursions and threats on his property it was only a matter of time. That being said, I do believe the other gentleman would have eventually killed him but he sensed weakness in Taylor after the second exchange where Taylor was bending over backwards to "make it right". So the plot to run him off his land and buy it up seems plausible. The problem is Taylor was not in on that plot, being the target and he was being threatened in a lawless territory. His only rational had to be, I am on my own and do I want to live? This is exactly the white people version of the hood and gangs. It's the only reality they have and it present few good choices. It's raw survival.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- spinningleaves 7y agoWhile this is getting away from the point of the story, I do have to ask; why does it always seem to be these types that are the most aggressive supporters of individualism? If you want to go out to the middle of nowhere, wipe your ass with grass an live without any person or government's help/interference, that is totally your prerogative. But the irony of someone surviving off welfare checks, killing a man because of police inaction, and then suing the county for inadequate mental health support is palpable. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Mooching off of welfare programs and posting tough-guy memes while calling everyone else pansies and having a hard-on for rugged 1800-style living? Cry me a river.
- sandworm101 7y agoIt's also a lot easier to be a rough-living alaska wild man when you know that, should you need it, a helicopter will be sent to pick you up and treat your busting appendix. I don't see many of these people forgoing antibiotics either. Even the guns they so cherish, 18th century firearms weren't what we would call reliable. They didn't always fire properly when needed, especially when old/wet. So even these tough bush people, if they carry ammo manufactured in recent decades, remain reliant upon modern production tech.
- Gibbon1 7y agoAs a kid the family in Little House on the Prairie was presented as being wholly self sufficient and reliant. Which made me wonder, if so where did dads rifle come from? The leather, the iron for the horse shoes and nails, the cotton cloth for their clothes? Right. The wheat they sold went out on the train and the train delivered all those things. And when their crops failed and they busted out the city slickers charity saved them from staving.
- DoreenMichele 7y agowhy does it always seem to be these types that are the most aggressive supporters of individualism? I think the impetus there is that he had a long history of negative social experiences. The article repeatedly indicates he couldn't rely on other people but other people considered him to be reliable in certain respects. He could be turned to for help, but he seemed to have no one he could turn to. Given that experience of life, I see no contradiction in his desire to go make it on his own in the middle of nowhere and his complaint that he's been given no help. I think they are two sides of the same coin.
- blueyes 7y agoWhat this highlights, for me, is the deeper reasons why rural and urban Americans disagree on gun control. In the country, it's unlikely that anyone will arrive in time to protect you. So people buy the guns to protect themselves. And they want the same laws to apply both where they live, and in densely populated urban areas where a single AR-15 can do a lot of damage.
- mieseratte 7y ago> And they want the same laws to apply both where they live, and in densely populated urban areas where a single AR-15 can do a lot of damage. A single AR-15 can do a lot of damage at a rural high-school all the same. The reason for the second amendment is defense, of person and of society. The police have issues with response times in cities, and in the event of disaster. Let us not forget of police abdication of duty during the LA92 Riots and the "Roof Koreans."
- blueyes 7y ago2A mentions neither persons nor society, but only the defense of a free State, notably the one the founders were in the process of creating: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Arguments about 2A's intent are endless, and given the polarized nature of the debate, also futile.
- mieseratte 7y agoThe Militia is the people. The state exists for the welfare of the people. To say it isn’t for the defense of the people is an argument of semantics.
- blueyes 7y ago> The Militia is the people. A bold interpretation. Does that include babies and seniors with dementia? They are part of the people by most definitions. Should we allow them to have arms? Hand a .22 pistol to an eight-month old? If not, where do you draw the line? Is a well-regulated militia a very distinct subset of the people? > The state exists for the welfare of the people. Theorists of the state would dispute that, and we have endless examples that contradict you. States generally exist to serve themselves, often at the expense of the people. > To say it isn’t for the defense of the people is an argument of semantics. The interpretation of a foundational text of US democracy is a matter of semantics. Semantics is about what words mean. You say they mean one thing. I happen to disagree with you. So yes, the whole nature of this dispute is semantic, and not in the sense of "semantics are trivial". The gist of the question is in assigning meaning to the words of 2A. And if you think they "just mean something and it's so obvious that no alternative meanings can be discussed," then you are begging the question. 2A explicitly says it is in defense of a state, not a people.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- harimau777 7y agoIt bothers me that there was even a hung jury over this: The guy who got shot: - Flipped out over an honest mistake that Taylor tried to make right - Used a weapon to threaten him - Stole Taylor's only method of calling for help on the day that he said he would kill him - His close associates went on the record that he was really willing to kill Taylor As far as I can see there's no question that Taylor's actions were self defense.
- microtherion 7y agoYes, according to the narrative of the article. However, a good part of that narrative seems to have been provided by Taylor. Some of this may be verifiable (e.g. the 911 calls), but other parts may not be (e.g. the security camera footage has no audio). And it appears the associates only went on record after the first trial.