
Outlaw Country - kawera
https://magazine.atavist.com/outlaw-country-klamath-county-oregon-guns-murder
======
otterley
My 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. :-)

~~~
sandworm101
>> You have to accept that no one will come to save your ass when trouble
starts.

That isn't a thing. I work for an organization (military) that sometimes gets
involved in search and rescue. Our society doesn't let people die in agony
alone in the woods. If you are attacked by a bear, or your boat sinks, a
helicopter will be sent to pick you up. You cannot opt out of that. Even if
you say no, we will send the machine. Eventually you will fall unconscious and
then we will treat you. That's modern society. "Just let them die" isn't real.
It is pure fantasy to pretend that anyone can opt out of humanity.

Canada is constantly dealing with this problem. People want to live in the
middle of nowhere but they still get government services, even the ones they
might not want. You cannot choose to live outside of basic health care any
more than you can opt to live outside the legal system. Given that reality,
why should the larger society cover the costs of people who want to live a
wilderness fantasy? Why should we allow people to live in places where they
will inevitably need very costly rescue services, where their kids will be
needed to be flown to and from they basic schooling they deserve?

~~~
Ididntdothis
I think along the same lines when in California I see people building huge
mansions in fire areas or people refusing to get health insurance. They wang
to have their freedom but rely on being bailed out when things go bad.

~~~
btilly
The name for that phenomena is "moral hazard".

~~~
sandworm101
Or "deregulation". The fire hazard thing is due to consistent efforts to
"develop" land into rural mcmansions for rich retired people. Why should taxes
go to defend retirement mansions knowingly built in fire zones? Or on a beach?
(rising water levels etc). Fire insurance covers damage, not the cost of
firefighters, and we cannot ask firefighters to just let everything burn. That
isn't safe (idiots don't evacuate) humane (pets) or even healthy (pollution).

------
davidw
Sad, 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.

~~~
ljf
Thanks for the Harper article, I really enjoyed that.

------
spinningleaves
While 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.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_why 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.

~~~
esotericn
This is a very well considered comment. I identify a lot with this.

Modern society is a very abstract place in which people find it difficult to
meaningfully trade favour. In cities at least, a whole bunch of stuff is out
of the control of individuals and in the control of a bureaucracy.

Wanting to escape that I don't see as being foreign at all.

Makes me think of the movie Falling Down. There are certainly times that I
enter some sort of internal monologue and just think - look, I'm here, open
and kind; perhaps not always, but in this moment I am. And others are here
acting as obstacles... because it's "their job", or whatever.

------
blueyes
What 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
> 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
2A 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
The 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
> 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.

------
pionerkotik
Interesting 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)

------
dsfyu404ed
>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
> 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.

------
harimau777
It 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
Yes, 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.

------
P_I_Staker
That is the most compelling thing I've read in a long time.

------
kevinherron
Scrolling this page causes Safari CPU usage to jump to ~120% and the fans in
my MBP to turn on...

~~~
davidw
After reading the story... it makes you think that's a pretty good problem to
have compared to some people's lot in life.

