I took a class on self-defense law, and that made me aware of some rather important things. I'm glad I spent the time to learn something about this topic, because the difference between freedom and prison can rest on distinctions that aren't intuitive to us laymen.

So then I started thinking: what about survival situations? Are there laws we need to be aware of? Yes, I know we'd be trying to stay alive in survival situations, and it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six and all that. But when order is restored, I'd prefer not to be dragged off to jail if I can help it. I really haven't thought about this stuff at all, so I thought I'd post a thread and see what kind of reactions I get.

Right now the only example I can think of is "looting." Let's say much of the town has been abandoned. Can you walk into an unlocked, unmanned grocery store and grab something to eat?

Heck yeah - unlocked unmanned doesn't give you right to property. Its looting, or more specifically theft.

Unlocked and unmanned is a misnomer - in most looting situations the owner will lock their store before leaving it. If the door or window has been broken, someone else has already started looting. Don't take part.

I can imagine all sorts of odd scenarios where your scenario is mitigated, such as you know the owner by name, you are a former employee at the store - maybe you could take what you immediately need and leave an accounting, and a promise to pay on demand when the owner returns. But that's seldom the scenario, we're talking B&E and theft.

That's why we should be prepared. The time to stock up on food isn't when the mob is smashing store windows! In reality it may be pretty hard to track down looters, especially those stealing food. If there's a disaster that knocks out the power there probably won't be surveillance cameras working. Stealing electronics to sell later, that would leave more of a trail.

The only area of legality that would concern me would be self defense. If some type of disaster caused a breakdown of law and order locally and I had to defend myself with lethal force, the person I was forced to kill would still be dead when the lights came back on. I would fully expect a reckoning at that point. I'm a CCW permit holder and take the responsibility very seriously, and I would only use lethal force in the gravest extremes of self defense.

In some situation where you would be forced to something technically illegal you would have to let common sense and necessity help you decide the issue. If you got lost while skiing and were hypothermic and stumbled upon a vacation cabin, you may be faced with the choice between B&E and freezing to death. I think the choice is pretty obvious in that case, and I would hope the owner of the cabin would be understanding. Just as obviously one would expect you to pay for any damage and any items used (eg food, heating oil, etc).

I don't know exactly what your liability is if you get into trouble while doing something stupid, and someone is killed or injured while trying to save you. It bears investigating but I go out of my way to avoid being in the running for a Darwin Award.

If zombies are wandering around the abandoned town, I'd say "Most definitely YES!" But in other situations, you'll have to make a judgement call. These days, even in normal times, criminals seem to have more rights than their victims. So in times of disaster, I would make a guess that being "a little bit of a minor league criminal" wouldn't get you into too much trouble. YMMV.

I'd prefer to be prepared, but if it really came down to facing death or going against my moral character and breaking into a store to take something I need, I'd probably do the latter. True looters on the other hand, tend to act like things "they really need to survive" include television sets, Playstation gaming systems, etc. That is never right or justifiable.

"In some situation where you would be forced to something technically illegal you would have to let common sense and necessity help you decide the issue. If you got lost while skiing and were hypothermic and stumbled upon a vacation cabin, you may be faced with the choice between B&E and freezing to death. I think the choice is pretty obvious in that case, and I would hope the owner of the cabin would be understanding. Just as obviously one would expect you to pay for any damage and any items used (eg food, heating oil, etc)."

In "the good old days" (1950s) back country cabins -rancher's line cabins, ranger patrol cabins, and the like, were usually left unlocked, at least in Arizona. The understanding was you could take shelter and use the cabin if necessary. It was good manners to leave the cabin clean and stocked with kindling, etc. so that the next person could make fire relatively easily. The loaded Winchester 94, or equivalent, was stowed under the mattress in two cabins that we visited.

This all went away with the backpacking boom of the 60s.

I think I have pretty high moral values, but faced with starvation, especially of my family, I am sure I would do whatever it takes and accept the consequences.

I think that was common practice in the Yukon back in the day, too, Hikermor. According to a program I watched hosted by Ray Mears, in Nordic countries it was common practice to leave a match sticking out of the box, match-head first, in case someone had little dexterity from the cold.

Justice may take years, but it often does come. I recall that some cops were recently sentenced for murders they committed in NOLA during Katrina. Disaster is not the time for all semblance of civilization to flee, nor is it permissible.

Ideally, one should be prepared with stocks of food and other supplies so as to avoid any temptation to steal.
Apart from any legal consequences when order is restored, remember that looters may be shot ! either by the owners of the property or by TPTB.

There are of course circumstances when breaking the law might be acceptable, but IMHO these apply more to the breaking of minor regulations, rather than to looting or other theft.

Connecting up a standby generator without permit or inspection (provided that you know what you are doing) is against the law in many places, but in an emergency is a lot more acceptable than looting.

Theft or other crime MIGHT be acceptable in dire emergency if the alternative is death, the example given of breaking into a vacation home is a good one.

Likewise, if hungry, the shooting of an animal to eat it is probably acceptable even outside the hunting season.

Morally it is a bit more acceptable to steal things that would otherwise go to waste, for example crops that are clearly not going to be harvested and will otherwise rot.
If you neighbour dies suddenly, to steal the contents of their home is wrong, the goods belong to their family. But harvesting their garden crops might be acceptable, especialy if they would go to waste before the property is sold.

Playing doctor and declaring someone dead or burying victims wthout the correct legal authorities can lead to a whole world of hurt.

Have a look at:

Dead Body Field Manual

Good Samaritan laws may not be as cut-and-dried in your state as you believe. The court case of Alexandra Van Horn v. Lisa Torti in California is a case in point. Two women who were friends were driving two separate cars after a night out of partying. One woman crashed her car and the friend, fearing the wreck would catch on fire or blow up, pulled the other woman out of the car. She ended up paralyzed and sued the friend, claiming that she had pulled her out of the car "like a ragdoll."

The lower court found that she was not liable but it was reversed on appeal. The California Supreme Court found that California's Good Samaritan law did not apply to this woman because she did not provide any "emergency medical care" and simply pulled the woman from the wreck, therefore she was liable.

The state legislature has since amended the law to include non-medical aid. I don't know what ultimately happened to the friend and how much she had to pay.

not sure I can tell you the precise legalities. but I do think that if New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina teach us anything - it's that people will be judged for what they do. Good or bad ... there will be a final judgment at the end.

I do not think the system will judge you harshly if you try to provide medical assistance. just don't tell people you are qualified - if you are not. just tell them you can help with some basic first aid. keep their expectations LOW. don't administer restricted medications, if you are not qualified to give them. but by all means provide bandages, and some items to clean wounds. let people do as much of the treatment themselves as you can.

killing people in self-defense is plausible, and could be necessary. but I wouldn't do it unless it was critical to do so. you should expect that you are going to have to account for your actions at some stage in the future. if you are outside of your home and you use lethal force, you may have a lot of explaining to do. i would display a weapon, but not point it or use it as a deliberate threat - that might convince some potential attackers to back off. it could work either way (they might decide to attack to get your weapon), so it's a judgment call. basically keep in mind that a jury is going to want to be "sure" that the threat you were facing was critical in nature, and presented an immediate danger to you or your family.

the whole "zombie" thing has gone WAY overboard. it's a marketing gimmick to sell guns and ammo (and T-shirts). some of those zombies are just tired, confused people who need a drink of water. some of them are truly dangerous. it will be necessary for you to accurately assess the threat and get it right ... no easy task in a disaster zone.

Pete2