Quote:
The Meredith Emerson incident, I believe, was un-defendable (by Meredith). I suggest she was 'schmoozed' into confidence, no different than Ted Bundy's victims. So, carrying a weapon won't protect you from being 'sniped' or 'con'd'. Would she have been justified to use deadly force? No. Right up until she turned her back, then it was to late.


Actually, in Gary Hilton's confession, some of which has been publicized, he says the initial blow did not kill Meredith Emerson, who then fought very visciously to defend herself but was eventually overwhelmed. It is possible that had she been carrying the weapon in a fanny pack or similar concealed location, she may still not have been able to bring it to bear. Then again, she may have, and the results might have been dramatically different.

A great deal also depends on the demeanor of possible assailants. Having spent a great deal of time within the hiking community, particularly the eastern hiking community, there are definitely certain norms that you pick up on. Often, they simply serve to note that someone is a novice to backpacking, but other times, they raise red flags that a person is not out there to backpack at all. We often hear the advice to pay attention to those instincts that tell us someone is not quite right.

In such a case as deadly force, this is critical, particularly as it pertains to accessing a weapon if necessary. The extra notice that such cues provide can make the few moments difference in successfully resisting an attack. Slightly opening the fannypack/safepacker or whatever holster device is in use when suspicions are aroused (without actually exposing the weapon to others' view) could literally make all the difference in the world, your world.
_________________________
http://www.trailjournals.com/BearpawAT99/