Personal safety when hiking alone
Replies
-
When I was a kid my family had a beagle who was super hyper but a love-bug to everyone. Once at a beach when I was 13 she was walking me (way out ahead on the leash) and we stumbled across a group of drunk high school boys. One of them started approaching like he was going to drape his drunken arm over my shoulder or something, and my hyperactive but sweet beagle turned into Cujo. She threw such a fit (baying, growling, lunging at them as much as the leash would allow, hackles up) the whole group of teens ran away, leaving their stuff, until I moved on.
In the presence of a threat your friendly pup could go rabid wolf in a heartbeat. They may have brains the size of a walnut but they expend 100% of their mental effort trying to figure humans out, and they're pretty good at identifying who's a threat.8 -
Hannahwalksfar wrote: »We don’t have bear spray for the simple reason that we completely lack bears
Koala spray. You never know when one will mistake you for a eucalyptus tree and start gnawing away.11 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Australia, where everything wants to kill you and you're not allowed to stop it. Lol
ETA: with your options for self defense being so limited, I would second the suggestions for a sturdy stick and taking the pup.
Also, walk tall and make eye contact with everyone. It portrays confidence which makes you seem less vulnerable.
Haa haa. Our homicide rate is tiny in comparison to the US and here most victims are known to the perpetrator. We have crocodiles and sharks which we won't have a problem with when hiking. There are snakes which will leave you alone if you leave them alone. Kangaroos, koala, emus, wombats .... certainly don't need a spray to protect us from those. That only leaves those killer drop bears
Banning pepper spray and tasers aren't the cause of the low homicide rate in Australia.
For that matter, neither is the gun ban considering your homicide rate was just as low before the ban.
And you forgot the spiders. Y'all got spiders that make it reasonable to carry a bazooka. Lol
Again, statistics show our homicide rates are significantly lower since bringing in tighter gun controls.
Statistics show the homicide rate was already dropping even leading up to the 1996 ban and was already super low compared to many other developed countries.
That aside (it's neither the point of this thread nor of my post you replied to), I still find it silly to ban nonlethal methods of self defense such as pepper spray and tasers, leaving people like the OP wondering what in the world they can do to keep themselves safe when out alone.
And given that OP lives in such a place where these strict regulations against defensive tools exist, the best advice I can give remains the same as in my original response: carry yourself with confidence to avoid the appearance of vulnerability, carry a big stick and take the dog.
Those steps won't necessarily do much to save anyone if an attack occurs (unless you have a dog with a protective instinct or are highly proficient with a staff) but they can work in your favor to make you seem a less desirable target in the first place.10 -
Lol the internet is full of Australians poking fun at all the large and/or scary bugs, animals, and plants in Australia. There's a tough crowd in here tonight.
OP, I don't think you're over reacting. You need to do what you have to in order to feel safe and confident. I suspect the most useful strategies are the ones that make you look like a bad target, so you never get to the point where you have to defend yourself, and making sure someone knows where you are and when you expect to return. I sympathize, I have a tough time feeling safe when I'm by myself out in the world and not in a crowded place. I'll only go solo on short hikes with a quick route out, and even so I tend to bail if anything looks sketchy, probably unnecessarily.
You get me.2 -
Just get pepper spray anyway, I'm sure it's available online...I'd chose protection over being a dead victim...4
-
If you’re caught with it the fines are horrendous. I’m not a law breaker9
-
So ppl are just walking around with guns just like that? Thats trippy.
I wouldn’t go anywere where I thought I wasn’t safe. If i felt it was unsafe to the point where I was taking pictures of licence plates I wouldn’t bother. Just bring the pepper spray if it’s that serious for you.
1 -
bosque1234 wrote: »Just get pepper spray anyway, I'm sure it's available online...I'd chose protection over being a dead victim...
Statements like this are not helpful and not reflective of what reality actually is. I certainly support people taking common sense precautions and self protections steps in an attempt to create a feeling of safety. But we also need to look at the reality of what the real risks to people are. A woman is far, far, more likely to be attacked by an intimate partner than a stranger. Or get in a car crash, or fall in the shower. Or a whole host of other things. Social media has not helped things by constantly creating an echo chamber convincing everyone they are going to get ax murdered if they walk outside.
Reasonable safety precautions are a good thing. And if someone feels unsafe, there is nothing wrong with them feeling that way and they should take steps to feel protected. But trying to irrationally fear monger them is not helpful.10 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Hannahwalksfar wrote: »Never mind. It’s illegal here.
Here in Texas Monday for the first time in several decades it will be legal to possess and carry brass knuckles. Maybe that for you there?
Nope.. brass knuckles are also illegal
2 -
That isn't true in all cases everywhere. You might want to read (or at least skim) this now 5 year old article from Outside https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly . Never mind too that the OP very clearly isn't in the US (though I wouldn't be shocked if search and rescue efforts are paid primarily by taxpayer dollars there).Diatonic12 wrote: »Who absorbs all of the costs for search and rescues. Ultimately, it comes down to taxpayer dollars. Should it remain a free public service. That's what many question in my neck of the woods. Who pays for the boots on the ground, the search plane, rescue or recovery.0 -
See, one of the reasons why I'm less than keen on going on hikes by myself is because I'm afraid people will have guns and think "oh god this person must be a threat!" Not that many Portlanders carry guns, but that's along the same lines of, most violence against women is perpetuated by people they know (and that not stopping women from being scared of things like hiking alone).
And no I'm not a threat to anyone, but not being a threat or acting like a threat doesn't mean that people won't think you are (I'll let you all fill in the various dots). It is crappy though because there is a lot of very good hiking here and I currently have way too much free time on my hands.8 -
There’s a pleasant 500 acre park here that I might just hike around. Great views, climbs and enough variety to keep me interested until I go. I was planning to visit the NP next week but I might leave it as I can’t take my dog there and my friend backed out.2
-
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r4/fire-aviation/?cid=fseprd517615&width=full
Some may volunteer all of their time but they don't work for free.0 -
Search and rescue is run mainly by the SES here. I was a member for a while. Purely volunteer.3
-
@Hannahwalksfar
You choose. You decide. We're from two different locales, govt. agencies and so on. I'm sure you'll make the best decisions for yourself.
https://flyhaa.com/helicopter/career-path/
0 -
See, one of the reasons why I'm less than keen on going on hikes by myself is because I'm afraid people will have guns and think "oh god this person must be a threat!" Not that many Portlanders carry guns, but that's along the same lines of, most violence against women is perpetuated by people they know (and that not stopping women from being scared of things like hiking alone).
And no I'm not a threat to anyone, but not being a threat or acting like a threat doesn't mean that people won't think you are (I'll let you all fill in the various dots). It is crappy though because there is a lot of very good hiking here and I currently have way too much free time on my hands.
People who are concerned with their safety may take notice of someone who seems threatening and keep an eye on them but they don't preemptively attack strangers who leave them alone.
That's not a thing that happens.8 -
bosque1234 wrote: »Just get pepper spray anyway, I'm sure it's available online...I'd chose protection over being a dead victim...
Statements like this are not helpful and not reflective of what reality actually is. I certainly support people taking common sense precautions and self protections steps in an attempt to create a feeling of safety. But we also need to look at the reality of what the real risks to people are. A woman is far, far, more likely to be attacked by an intimate partner than a stranger. Or get in a car crash, or fall in the shower. Or a whole host of other things. Social media has not helped things by constantly creating an echo chamber convincing everyone they are going to get ax murdered if they walk outside.
Reasonable safety precautions are a good thing. And if someone feels unsafe, there is nothing wrong with them feeling that way and they should take steps to feel protected. But trying to irrationally fear monger them is not helpful.
What a reasonable, common sense response. You set out the reality without invalidating an individual's personal feelings.4 -
bosque1234 wrote: »Just get pepper spray anyway, I'm sure it's available online...I'd chose protection over being a dead victim...
Manufacturers are aware of where it's illegal and won't ship it there. You would have to have it shipped to somewhere it's legal and then arrange to get it from there to you. Or you would have to buy it under the table from someone selling them illegally. Not worth the trouble, honestly.
As a woman, we each have to draw that line between being cautious & prepared, and thinking every other person on the trail, elevator, or parking garage is a rapist murderer and letting fear control us. It's not an easy line to draw, and unfortunately many of us have personal experiences that factor in to it. We all get to draw that line where we want to though, and unless you've lived someone's life you can't judge whether they're being too cautious or not.8 -
I stick to popular hiking areas when I'm alone with my dogs, but I do have pepper spray even though it's not legal here. And a bear bell. But I'm more worried about actual bears and other dogs than I am about people. I've walked right past RCMP officers while carrying my spray openly on my belt, but they've never batted an eye at me.0
-
.357 and a my pack. Not much here in the wilds of Florida that can withstand a .357 hollow point and live. Lol2
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »See, one of the reasons why I'm less than keen on going on hikes by myself is because I'm afraid people will have guns and think "oh god this person must be a threat!" Not that many Portlanders carry guns, but that's along the same lines of, most violence against women is perpetuated by people they know (and that not stopping women from being scared of things like hiking alone).
And no I'm not a threat to anyone, but not being a threat or acting like a threat doesn't mean that people won't think you are (I'll let you all fill in the various dots). It is crappy though because there is a lot of very good hiking here and I currently have way too much free time on my hands.
People who are concerned with their safety may take notice of someone who seems threatening and keep an eye on them but they don't preemptively attack strangers who leave them alone.
That's not a thing that happens.
Alas, this is not true, but I don't want to take this thread there. I'm sure if you think about it, you will recall some high profile instances where this was not the case. But we shouldn't derail this thread with that discussion.12 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »See, one of the reasons why I'm less than keen on going on hikes by myself is because I'm afraid people will have guns and think "oh god this person must be a threat!" Not that many Portlanders carry guns, but that's along the same lines of, most violence against women is perpetuated by people they know (and that not stopping women from being scared of things like hiking alone).
And no I'm not a threat to anyone, but not being a threat or acting like a threat doesn't mean that people won't think you are (I'll let you all fill in the various dots). It is crappy though because there is a lot of very good hiking here and I currently have way too much free time on my hands.
People who are concerned with their safety may take notice of someone who seems threatening and keep an eye on them but they don't preemptively attack strangers who leave them alone.
That's not a thing that happens.
Alas, this is not true, but I don't want to take this thread there. I'm sure if you think about it, you will recall some high profile instances where this was not the case. But we shouldn't derail this thread with that discussion.
You could have provided a single example instead of alluding to supposed "high profile cases" to substantiate your claim.
Instead, you just made the claim and stated that to counter it would be to derail the thread.
However, it wouldn't be derailment at all.
This is a discussion about safety while hiking. The claim was made that people may perceive a peaceful person as a threat, despite them not acting in a threatening manner, and that this makes hiking unsafe for the peaceful yet scary looking person.
I replied that this isn't a rational concern because people don't approach and attack others in broad daylight on the basis of "I thought they looked threatening" when the person has left them alone.
So, on topic with the thread, I maintain that being attacked for looking scary isn't a reasonable cause for concern when hiking.
If you believe that to be inaccurate, I do request that you present one case of a civilian attacking another civilian, unprovoked, on the basis of "I thought they were a threat to my safety" while hiking in broad daylight.
Two people in a neighborhood getting into an altercation at night, regardless of who started it, which leads to one of them dead with only the survivor's side of the story left and a media frenzy surrounding the controversy does not factor into a discussion about whether or not your looks make it unsafe to go hiking.3 -
Carlos, kshama is probably referring to (for example) the Trayvon Martin case here in the US, in Florida, where a teenager in a hoodie walking home in a gated community to his aunt's from the corner store where he bought skittles, was shot to death without provocation by a "neighborhood watch" vigilante because Trayvon was black.
PS: When I went to Prineville to watch the eclipse, the hills were filled with men open-carrying pistols. I think they were afraid the tourists were going to ravage the place.
I can understand why a 'scary' (which I'm inferring means 'minority') person might feel unsafe walking in the Oregon hills given the gun-toting rednecks who also walk those hills.
PPS: By statistical chance, Portland is an extremely white city. This is not by any design or overt racism there it's just the way the pick-up-sticks fell. As a result, white supremacist groups keep coming to Portland to demonstrate--sort of trying to take over because the town is already pasty. Portlanders keep rebuffing the hate groups, but they are a persistent problem, and their membership comes from *outside* Portland--the groups haven't been very successful recruiting Portlanders to join their hate groups. So that's another reason for minorities in Portland to be cautious about where they go. It's not fair, but its true that the town is being targeted by violent thugs, and one can infer this is doubly true for the town's minorities. In that case the minority person isn't being attacked because they are viewed as a predator but because s/th/he is the racist's preferred prey.11 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »See, one of the reasons why I'm less than keen on going on hikes by myself is because I'm afraid people will have guns and think "oh god this person must be a threat!" Not that many Portlanders carry guns, but that's along the same lines of, most violence against women is perpetuated by people they know (and that not stopping women from being scared of things like hiking alone).
And no I'm not a threat to anyone, but not being a threat or acting like a threat doesn't mean that people won't think you are (I'll let you all fill in the various dots). It is crappy though because there is a lot of very good hiking here and I currently have way too much free time on my hands.
People who are concerned with their safety may take notice of someone who seems threatening and keep an eye on them but they don't preemptively attack strangers who leave them alone.
That's not a thing that happens.
Alas, this is not true, but I don't want to take this thread there. I'm sure if you think about it, you will recall some high profile instances where this was not the case. But we shouldn't derail this thread with that discussion.
You could have provided a single example instead of alluding to supposed "high profile cases" to substantiate your claim.
Instead, you just made the claim and stated that to counter it would be to derail the thread.
However, it wouldn't be derailment at all.
This is a discussion about safety while hiking. The claim was made that people may perceive a peaceful person as a threat, despite them not acting in a threatening manner, and that this makes hiking unsafe for the peaceful yet scary looking person.
I replied that this isn't a rational concern because people don't approach and attack others in broad daylight on the basis of "I thought they looked threatening" when the person has left them alone.
So, on topic with the thread, I maintain that being attacked for looking scary isn't a reasonable cause for concern when hiking.
If you believe that to be inaccurate, I do request that you present one case of a civilian attacking another civilian, unprovoked, on the basis of "I thought they were a threat to my safety" while hiking in broad daylight.
Two people in a neighborhood getting into an altercation at night, regardless of who started it, which leads to one of them dead with only the survivor's side of the story left and a media frenzy surrounding the controversy does not factor into a discussion about whether or not your looks make it unsafe to go hiking.
"in broad daylight while hiking" is a very narrow clarification of it. It's happened plenty of time where people in the world are just generally minding their own business and doing nothing to lead others on that they would be threatening.
Example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-adams-white-man-indicted-elijah-al-amin-murder-black-teen-over-rap-music-2019-07-11/5 -
When people find out that I hike and trail run by myself (I prefer it that way!) they inevitably ask “aren’t you afraid of being out there all alone?” And for me it comes down to Risk vs Benefit. As long as I feel that the benefits outweigh the risks then I will continue to go out alone. Of course things could always change and if the risks were greater than the benefits then I’d need to reevaluate. I take reasonable precautions and do what I can to avoid getting into a bad situation to begin with but ultimately you can’t prepare for every single possible scenario and anything can still happen at any time... but that’s just life in general. I’ve spent 6 years exploring the wilderness in my area and it’s enriched my life to a point beyond words and I wouldn’t change it for anything! It’s natural to be fearful when you are out there alone but I try to stay realistic in my fears as well. The scariest things that have happened to me so far have been dealing with unleashed dogs and being chased by a small herd of cattle that appeared out of nowhere and no amount of pepper spray, brass knuckles or conceal/carry firearms could have remedied that particular situation because they were already on my heels, I had to hightail it to the nearest tree to escape them, I wrote about it here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10738196/mad-cow-how-to-deal-with-aggressive-cattle#latest
Make sure someone always knows where you are going and a reasonable time to expect you to return as well as a set amount of time when they should really start mobilizing to begin a rescue if you haven’t checked in with them.
Ultimately the most dangerous part about going for a hike alone is driving to the trail.
Also, look up Master Wong on you tube he has very practical advice and demonstrations of basic self defense techniques and his videos are fun and informative, I’ve learned a lot watching him!
Happy trails to you! 10 -
Carlos, kshama is probably referring to (for example) the Trayvon Martin case here in the US, in Florida, where a teenager in a hoodie walking home in a gated community to his aunt's from the corner store where he bought skittles, was shot to death without provocation by a "neighborhood watch" vigilante because Trayvon was black.
PS: When I went to Prineville to watch the eclipse, the hills were filled with men open-carrying pistols. I think they were afraid the tourists were going to ravage the place.
I can understand why a 'scary' (which I'm inferring means 'minority') person might feel unsafe walking in the Oregon hills given the gun-toting rednecks who also walk those hills.
PPS: By statistical chance, Portland is an extremely white city. This is not by any design or overt racism there it's just the way the pick-up-sticks fell. As a result, white supremacist groups keep coming to Portland to demonstrate--sort of trying to take over because the town is already pasty. Portlanders keep rebuffing the hate groups, but they are a persistent problem, and their membership comes from *outside* Portland--the groups haven't been very successful recruiting Portlanders to join their hate groups. So that's another reason for minorities in Portland to be cautious about where they go. It's not fair, but its true that the town is being targeted by violent thugs, and one can infer this is doubly true for the town's minorities. In that case the minority person isn't being attacked because they are viewed as a predator but because s/th/he is the racist's preferred prey.
The Trayvon Martin case has exactly nothing to do with the safety of hiking which is what we're talking about.
ETA: and no, "minority" is not what I meant by "scary." I just didn't feel like typing out "threatening" again and again.
In fact, it didn't even occur to me that the "I'm afraid to go hiking" was due to minority status. I thought maybe they were a large, biker looking type with neck tattoos.
Doubt me on that if you like but it's the truth. I was actually confused by the "I'll let you fill in the blanks" part of the original claim. Didn't know what blanks I was supposed to be filling in.
The poster didn't say "I'm afraid of hate groups." They said "I'm afraid people will find me threatening."2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »See, one of the reasons why I'm less than keen on going on hikes by myself is because I'm afraid people will have guns and think "oh god this person must be a threat!" Not that many Portlanders carry guns, but that's along the same lines of, most violence against women is perpetuated by people they know (and that not stopping women from being scared of things like hiking alone).
And no I'm not a threat to anyone, but not being a threat or acting like a threat doesn't mean that people won't think you are (I'll let you all fill in the various dots). It is crappy though because there is a lot of very good hiking here and I currently have way too much free time on my hands.
People who are concerned with their safety may take notice of someone who seems threatening and keep an eye on them but they don't preemptively attack strangers who leave them alone.
That's not a thing that happens.
Alas, this is not true, but I don't want to take this thread there. I'm sure if you think about it, you will recall some high profile instances where this was not the case. But we shouldn't derail this thread with that discussion.
You could have provided a single example instead of alluding to supposed "high profile cases" to substantiate your claim.
Instead, you just made the claim and stated that to counter it would be to derail the thread.
However, it wouldn't be derailment at all.
This is a discussion about safety while hiking. The claim was made that people may perceive a peaceful person as a threat, despite them not acting in a threatening manner, and that this makes hiking unsafe for the peaceful yet scary looking person.
I replied that this isn't a rational concern because people don't approach and attack others in broad daylight on the basis of "I thought they looked threatening" when the person has left them alone.
So, on topic with the thread, I maintain that being attacked for looking scary isn't a reasonable cause for concern when hiking.
If you believe that to be inaccurate, I do request that you present one case of a civilian attacking another civilian, unprovoked, on the basis of "I thought they were a threat to my safety" while hiking in broad daylight.
Two people in a neighborhood getting into an altercation at night, regardless of who started it, which leads to one of them dead with only the survivor's side of the story left and a media frenzy surrounding the controversy does not factor into a discussion about whether or not your looks make it unsafe to go hiking.
"in broad daylight while hiking" is a very narrow clarification of it. It's happened plenty of time where people in the world are just generally minding their own business and doing nothing to lead others on that they would be threatening.
Example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-adams-white-man-indicted-elijah-al-amin-murder-black-teen-over-rap-music-2019-07-11/
"In broad daylight while hiking" is the topic of this thread and exactly the circumstances in which it was claimed that a person's looks make them unsafe.
ETA: Also, a disgusting racist who murders a kid over rap music isn't an example of someone attacking someone for looking threatening. Again, that's the claim that was made, that they were afraid to go hiking because someone may think they look threatening.
I'm not debating whether or not racists exist. They do. I'm not saying senseless murders don't occur. They do.
But the claim wasn't "I'm afraid to leave the house because of racists."
The claim was "I'm afraid to go hiking because another hiker may think I look threatening."2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »See, one of the reasons why I'm less than keen on going on hikes by myself is because I'm afraid people will have guns and think "oh god this person must be a threat!" Not that many Portlanders carry guns, but that's along the same lines of, most violence against women is perpetuated by people they know (and that not stopping women from being scared of things like hiking alone).
And no I'm not a threat to anyone, but not being a threat or acting like a threat doesn't mean that people won't think you are (I'll let you all fill in the various dots). It is crappy though because there is a lot of very good hiking here and I currently have way too much free time on my hands.
People who are concerned with their safety may take notice of someone who seems threatening and keep an eye on them but they don't preemptively attack strangers who leave them alone.
That's not a thing that happens.
Alas, this is not true, but I don't want to take this thread there. I'm sure if you think about it, you will recall some high profile instances where this was not the case. But we shouldn't derail this thread with that discussion.
You could have provided a single example instead of alluding to supposed "high profile cases" to substantiate your claim.
Instead, you just made the claim and stated that to counter it would be to derail the thread.
However, it wouldn't be derailment at all.
This is a discussion about safety while hiking. The claim was made that people may perceive a peaceful person as a threat, despite them not acting in a threatening manner, and that this makes hiking unsafe for the peaceful yet scary looking person.
I replied that this isn't a rational concern because people don't approach and attack others in broad daylight on the basis of "I thought they looked threatening" when the person has left them alone.
So, on topic with the thread, I maintain that being attacked for looking scary isn't a reasonable cause for concern when hiking.
If you believe that to be inaccurate, I do request that you present one case of a civilian attacking another civilian, unprovoked, on the basis of "I thought they were a threat to my safety" while hiking in broad daylight.
Two people in a neighborhood getting into an altercation at night, regardless of who started it, which leads to one of them dead with only the survivor's side of the story left and a media frenzy surrounding the controversy does not factor into a discussion about whether or not your looks make it unsafe to go hiking.
"in broad daylight while hiking" is a very narrow clarification of it. It's happened plenty of time where people in the world are just generally minding their own business and doing nothing to lead others on that they would be threatening.
Example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-adams-white-man-indicted-elijah-al-amin-murder-black-teen-over-rap-music-2019-07-11/
"In broad daylight while hiking" is the topic of this thread and exactly the circumstances in which it was claimed that a person's looks make them unsafe.
ETA: Also, a disgusting racist who murders a kid over rap music isn't an example of someone attacking someone for looking threatening. Again, that's the claim that was made, that they were afraid to go hiking because someone may think they look threatening.
I'm not debating whether or not racists exist. They do. I'm not saying senseless murders don't occur. They do.
But the claim wasn't "I'm afraid to leave the house because of racists."
The claim was "I'm afraid to go hiking because another hiker may think I look threatening."
So because you think hate crimes doesn’t happen while hiking in broad daylight that means it could never happen at all? So @aokoye shouldn’t feel threatened?
DISAGREE. What’s irrational is making someone feel like they are being irrational for feeling the way they do considering you haven’t walked in their shoes.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »See, one of the reasons why I'm less than keen on going on hikes by myself is because I'm afraid people will have guns and think "oh god this person must be a threat!" Not that many Portlanders carry guns, but that's along the same lines of, most violence against women is perpetuated by people they know (and that not stopping women from being scared of things like hiking alone).
And no I'm not a threat to anyone, but not being a threat or acting like a threat doesn't mean that people won't think you are (I'll let you all fill in the various dots). It is crappy though because there is a lot of very good hiking here and I currently have way too much free time on my hands.
People who are concerned with their safety may take notice of someone who seems threatening and keep an eye on them but they don't preemptively attack strangers who leave them alone.
That's not a thing that happens.
Alas, this is not true, but I don't want to take this thread there. I'm sure if you think about it, you will recall some high profile instances where this was not the case. But we shouldn't derail this thread with that discussion.
You could have provided a single example instead of alluding to supposed "high profile cases" to substantiate your claim.
Instead, you just made the claim and stated that to counter it would be to derail the thread.
However, it wouldn't be derailment at all.
This is a discussion about safety while hiking. The claim was made that people may perceive a peaceful person as a threat, despite them not acting in a threatening manner, and that this makes hiking unsafe for the peaceful yet scary looking person.
I replied that this isn't a rational concern because people don't approach and attack others in broad daylight on the basis of "I thought they looked threatening" when the person has left them alone.
So, on topic with the thread, I maintain that being attacked for looking scary isn't a reasonable cause for concern when hiking.
If you believe that to be inaccurate, I do request that you present one case of a civilian attacking another civilian, unprovoked, on the basis of "I thought they were a threat to my safety" while hiking in broad daylight.
Two people in a neighborhood getting into an altercation at night, regardless of who started it, which leads to one of them dead with only the survivor's side of the story left and a media frenzy surrounding the controversy does not factor into a discussion about whether or not your looks make it unsafe to go hiking.
"in broad daylight while hiking" is a very narrow clarification of it. It's happened plenty of time where people in the world are just generally minding their own business and doing nothing to lead others on that they would be threatening.
Example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-adams-white-man-indicted-elijah-al-amin-murder-black-teen-over-rap-music-2019-07-11/
"In broad daylight while hiking" is the topic of this thread and exactly the circumstances in which it was claimed that a person's looks make them unsafe.
ETA: Also, a disgusting racist who murders a kid over rap music isn't an example of someone attacking someone for looking threatening. Again, that's the claim that was made, that they were afraid to go hiking because someone may think they look threatening.
I'm not debating whether or not racists exist. They do. I'm not saying senseless murders don't occur. They do.
But the claim wasn't "I'm afraid to leave the house because of racists."
The claim was "I'm afraid to go hiking because another hiker may think I look threatening."
So because you think hate crimes doesn’t happen while hiking in broad daylight that means it could never happen at all? So @aokoye shouldn’t feel threatened?
DISAGREE. What’s irrational is making someone feel like they are being irrational for feeling the way they do considering you haven’t walked in their shoes.
Uuuggghhh....
Again, the claim wasn't "I'm afraid of hate crimes."
The claim was "I'm afraid people will think I'm a threat."
"I'm going to attack that person because I think they want to hurt me" is what was described and that is what I was responding to.
I was not claiming that minorities have no reason to fear hate crimes.
I was not responding to "I'm afraid to go hiking because someone may attack me for my race." That's not what was said.
If that's what was inferred and I just missed it then I apologize for failing to understand what was meant rather than what was actually said.3 -
I didn't initially infer race from @aokoye's post, because on first read it made me think of my brother, a white guy who is mentally ill and spent a year in locked mental health wards and jail pre-trial because the judge thought he was scary looking. Well, I don't know exactly what she thought, but the police report literally said, "Scaring the tourists" and I can easily see how people would perceive him as scary when his medication is not working.
But when you said "they don't preemptively attack strangers who leave them alone" I did immediately think of poor Trayvon Martin, which is hardly the only recent incidence of this. I don't think it's unreasonable to extrapolate from not being safe while walking in one's neighborhood, or shopping in Walmart, or listening to music in one's car, or playing in a park, to not feeling safe while hiking because one could be (mis)perceived as a threat.
I rarely see people where I hike, and have been startled when I do see them, so am glad I neither carry a gun nor am trigger happy.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions