Posted on 11/01/2021 2:39:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
Thirty years ago, I was hiking alone on a section of the Appalachian Trail known as "Rocky Top" when I encountered two stocky young men. The thought occurred to me that they could easily kill me, toss my body in the brush, and get away scot-free.
Whether the thought occurred to either of them, I will never know. I passed them by with a brief nod and moved on quickly to the turn-off leading to my parked car. But I remained troubled, and remain so today, by the fact that I had been so completely at risk. I had been spared, but why? There was no practical reason why the young men shouldn't have dispatched me with a rock, stolen my wallet, and sailed me off the ledge. What restrained them?
Was it just the fear of getting caught? Or that I might be carrying a weapon, or might yell loudly enough to attract help? Or is there actually a moral boundary not to be crossed — a line that most humans have hardwired into our brains or that we have been taught? Was I just lucky that day to encounter decent chaps who would never hurt a fly, to say nothing of another human?
As the decades passed, I thought back to that meeting, wondering if the result would have been different had it taken place years later. Ten, twenty, thirty years later, has that moral inhibition dwindled to the point that the stronger group would think nothing of attacking the lone hiker? If I met such a pair today, alone and considerably less fleet of foot as I am, would I escape unharmed?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Lack of motive?
Yeah, I was gonna say, well, they might not have actually been criminals.
But had the author met the wrong pair of dudes.........
I was thinking of an old Unsolved Mysteries late last night (actually early yesterday morning). Knew a guy who was related to the missing person in the story.
Looked it up - seems the guy has never been found. Went missing over 30 years ago. Wandered off. Perhaps he never wanted to be found again and simply went elsewhere on the planet. Dunno.
Stop means nothing today
ping
A strange question given the genocide of abortion. Killing the unborn is how it starts. After that all bets are off…
I am thinking there was an amendment to some old forgotten document that could be of some benefit to the hapless hiker.
Very interesting.
Moral equivalency and moral relativism is slowly killing us and rotting us.
There is something deliberate in it, especially when it creeps into our law and does make value judgements: eg, its ok to assault, burn and maim as a protest but not ok to raise a forceful defense against those who riot. One gets off scot free and the other is charged remorselessly.
WE do have to instill moral rights in our kids, even tho the forces of relativism deride those attempts.We won’t have any positive reinforcement from educators or popular culture, unlike in the past. Its a tough slog. One worth doing but maybe doomed to fail.
[I am thinking there was an amendment to some old forgotten document that could be of some benefit to the hapless hiker.]
1st?
3rd?
It’s gotta be in there somewhere!
:)
A close friend's sister was highlighted on that series. Her murderer was found in a Florida prison after he admitted to a fellow inmate that he had killed that girl on the TV
Most people are not violent criminals thank goodness. Obviously your chance of encountering those who are is higher in certain situations (car broken down in an inner city) or lower in certain situations (hiking the Appalachian trail). Nobody can ever be perfectly safe but you can do things that make you much safer such as avoiding dangerous people/situations and always carrying a gun. I do both.
Even in a relatively safe environment like hiking in the woods or mountains, I would never dream of not carrying a gun. A well armed society is a polite society. The more of us that get guns and train in their use, the more the thugs need worry that their intended victim will pull a gun out and blow them to kingdom come if they try anything....and that therefore they need to behave themselves. The police cannot be everywhere - but armed citizens can.
Wow
Totalitarian government?
For 99 percent of Democrat voters, nothing. They worship death and destruction.
“The police cannot be everywhere”.
The job of the police is to protect criminals from the populace.
The first human born on Earth, Cain, murdered his own brother.
I think ‘ol Jeff likes to stereotype people he sees.
Plus he lives life as a rabbit.
Our preacher today was talking about the idea that “good people” go to heaven, and “bad people” go to hell.
Then went on about what does “good” mean. “Well - I never murdered anyone - so I get to go to heaven!”
I heard a sermon about this when I was in college. There are civilizations in the world where this kind of thing happens, and it’s just life to them. The difference between them and us seemed to be that their civilizations never had been touched by the Gospel.
The common denominator among the civilizations where murder, and other crimes, are considered crimes is that at some point in their history they had been exposed to the Gospel. It’s there basis for a moral compass.
I don’t know if that’s true, but it made sense when examples were given.
If you are carrying, you wouldn't worry as much as this guy.
The great equalizer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.