Short story to this post... 😉
DH got a call today from a friend he shoots with and that is in admin of the local power company looking after their infrastructure e.g. poles, lines etc and this was the tale he told...
The linesmen were at our neighbour's place replacing a dangerous power pole (they have been performing this work all throughout the valley for the last few weeks), she told them not very politely to not step foot on her property, which they have the right to do. Whilst doing the work a couple of them did enter her property and promptly got a lip full of abuse from her, then she called DH's mate and abused him and and called him everything under the sun and he had no idea what she was talking about.
The following day they parked a truck on public land adjacent to her property and went a little further up the valley to replace another pole, in the afternoon they returned to find their truck covered in horse manure with abusive messages smeared on the windscreen.
Once again she rang the power company to give them their pedigree 😉
The linesmen rang DH's mate and said "Your mate in the valley, he's got some strange neighbours."
This incident and many others like it from this rather entertaining neighbour got me thinking about how to deal with crazy people during a SHTF situation, this lady is hard to deal with now, add to that the many normal people that will likely go crazy through desperation when the SHTF.
Self-defense and diplomacy are going to be so important when the SHTF.
Worrying thing is though that we know this lady is aware of what is going on in the world and her and her sons would be considered by most to be preppers.
Wild lady that I wouldn't want around in a SHTF situation as either friend or foe 😕
Well, at least you know ahead of time about her. Fore warned is fore armed.
I worry about the folks that seem sane so you try to help them only to find out that they're dangerously not sane.
Well, at least you know ahead of time about her. Fore warned is fore armed.
I worry about the folks that seem sane so you try to help them only to find out that they're dangerously not sane.
True, true 😀
Well, at least you know ahead of time about her. Fore warned is fore armed.
I worry about the folks that seem sane so you try to help them only to find out that they're dangerously not sane.True, true 😀
Yes so very true, unfortunately I keep running into those type.
keep your friends close and your enemies closer LOL these sort of people generally do not concern me greatly they generally self destruct. Paranoia will destroy ya...
When in doubt think it out...(you thought I was gonna say something else?)
Thank the Lord my neighbours moved!! New ones are nicer and saner.
On your topic:
It is estimated that 10% of the US population is on antipsychotic medications (antidepressants etc). I don't know the stats for my country or yours but could you imagine 1 out of 10 people going nuts if they can't get their drugs?
When SHTF normal people who had no clue are going to freak out and do crazy things.
Scary....
“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Yes but are your new neighbours sane when off their meds ?
I am joking ,
sort of .
Have a pre emptive defensive plan if you really assess the situation needs it , I guess. I am pretty sure I will have a hard time keeping my marbles if something suddenly changed to a crisis .
Thank the Lord my neighbours moved!! New ones are nicer and saner.
On your topic:
It is estimated that 10% of the US population is on antipsychotic medications (antidepressants etc). I don't know the stats for my country or yours but could you imagine 1 out of 10 people going nuts if they can't get their drugs?
When SHTF normal people who had no clue are going to freak out and do crazy things.
Scary....
Yep I'd believe those stats...pretty sad.
Out of our immediate neighbours about 15 in number I know for certain that 3 of them are on antidepressants and suspect 2 more may be...and that's not including the crazy lady who probably should be 😆
So that's 1 in 5 or 20%....aggggghhh we're in trouble when the SHTF 😉
There are many people who are on antidepressants that are far from "crazy". They are dispensed the same way as valium was in the 60's. I would guestimate maybe 15% of the people that are on them actually need them to function. For others it is just a "little helper" just like the old Rolling Stones song. They allow some people to escape a part of their reality and avoid facing and dealing with problems. In many cases a societal change where they had to actually address the world would be a Godsend to many. Very few truly "crazy" people are dangerous per se... no more dangerous that the average person would be in any given circumstance.
JAB
From my experience I would definitely agree with JAB. Many people end up on antidepressants after a visit to the doctor, who prescribes them rather than getting the patient counselling which might actually solve the problem not just treat the symptom.
Should the source of antidepressants suddenly dry up after TSHTF the vast majority of people would not pose a danger to anyone but themselves. I am not worried about the occasional unbalanced person. I am worried about the guy with the starving family who does pose a real danger.
Going back to your neighbour if their land had not been violated in their eyes there would not have been a problem. Therefore the simple solution would be just stay away from them and if you don’t bother them they will not bother you. On a positive note if outside influences roam your area they have a 50% chance of visiting your neighbors first. Who knows your neighbors may end up solving potential problems for you.
From my experience I would definitely agree with JAB. Many people end up on antidepressants after a visit to the doctor, who prescribes them rather than getting the patient counselling which might actually solve the problem not just treat the symptom.
Should the source of antidepressants suddenly dry up after TSHTF the vast majority of people would not pose a danger to anyone but themselves. I am not worried about the occasional unbalanced person. I am worried about the guy with the starving family who does pose a real danger.
Going back to your neighbour if their land had not been violated in their eyes there would not have been a problem. Therefore the simple solution would be just stay away from them and if you don’t bother them they will not bother you. On a positive note if outside influences roam your area they have a 50% chance of visiting your neighbors first. Who knows your neighbors may end up solving potential problems for you.
I agree 100% with the reasons people end up on them and yes for so many it would be best handled another way.
Unfortunately a lot of mentally unbalanced people, like my neighbour, don't stick to the rule of 'if you don’t bother them they will not bother you', that would be glory and bliss indeed. But instead little strange games get played like going down the driveway, around a bend and finding barbed wire dragged across the road to puncture your tyres, or leaping out from behind bushes on the main road in front of council trucks to stop them spraying the road side and nearly sending the truck off embankments.
I think the issue is the unpredictability of the person.
I guess it is good training for when the SHTF...expect the unexpected 🙂
BTW I was being faceitious saying the crazy lady should be on them
Sorry to create such controversy! I just threw up antidepressants as an example. There are also antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia and other psychosis drugs that are covered in that 10% estimate. It`s just that there are a lot of people out there who when on their drugs and under a good routine under a doctor`s supervision that are fully normal functioning adults in society but without their drugs aren`t functional or are even dangerous. I agree antidepressants can be good for some people, but in extreme cases of depression if a patient can no longer can get their dose..... not so good. It was just an example, not a jab at anyone. 😳
“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
No "jab" taken and no controversy. The reality of mental health is that the vast majority with ANY kind of diagnosis will be a risk to themselves. There are VERY few who will be a danger to others. Most of those will be extreme paranoid schizophrenics and psycho/sociopaths. The risk from those who will be without medication or organized care will be very low.
JAB
No "jab" taken and no controversy. The reality of mental health is that the vast majority with ANY kind of diagnosis will be a risk to themselves. There are VERY few who will be a danger to others. Most of those will be extreme paranoid schizophrenics and psycho/sociopaths. The risk from those who will be without medication or organized care will be very low.
JAB
Spoken by someone who knows! (Not from the “yeh I know it’s me perspective” but from the professional perspective).
Given the track record of depressed people and their typical reactions to stress, trauma, and crisis -- I suspect you will have less to worry about then you think from most of them.
Depressed people tend to be suicidal and self-destructive more then outwardly destructive. Chances are when their meds run out they will learn to cope with the pain through some sort of spiritual rebirth, or more likely end their existence. The only danger I forsee is that kind of personality may flock to someone they perceive as a leader, even if that leader is clearly the nut case to be wary of. Depressed people can be easily manipulated by con-artists of various sorts, and then easily used to the malevolent leaders end. We see this in most gang violence (where patsys are convinced to do the dirty deeds) or in the case of misplaced loyalty to someone they see as a savior of their pain and depression.
Otherwise I suspect most of the general population will suffer a wide-spread epidemic of depression and malaise. Humans in general do not deal well with disasters, and that one to twelve week period after the disaster will be what tests most people adaptability.
It is the people who by their nature lash out in impulsively violent rages (whether medicated or not) that I would be more concerned about. They tend to be ill-educated or simply ill-tempered, and will no doubt lack the patience to be civilized for long after general civil society collapses. Combine that with someone who is anti-social and opportunist, and those would be the two examples of people to beware of.
Those in authority now who think they have to ramp up their level of authority to keep control of a community or society are the sorts that concern me. These account for far too many in current leadership positions. Such persons may shelter the community, but no doubt will organize with the end goal of small scale dictatorship ideals, and they will seek soon enough to eliminate anyone they see as potential competition long-term for their hold on power. History certainly shows this is the most common sort of crazy person that makes disasters worse -- whether they are in uniform or not. If those authority figures themselves do not adapt well to the crisis in a civilized fashion, then you will have even bigger problems.
The bigger question will have to be soon after the disaster strikes and this person(s) rise to power. Do we eliminate or have the planned means to remove the crazy person from power, or do we need to move elsewhere -- as in have a Plan B location to try and survive.