Caedite eos

[SCFinfan]

A question:

You are staying in a modern log cabin in a remote, northern part of Montana for a week . This cabin is over 20 miles away from civilization and features a spacious main room with all the trimmings and a basement w/ a coal-fueled heating system along with two bedrooms. The drawback is that, while you have plenty of coal for many many weeks, you have to shovel it yourself.

During your stay, 3 strange men appear at your door, asking for a nights lodging. They were "driving to Canada" they say, but their car broke down and they need a place to survive the bitter cold of the night. All three have packs that look heavy-loaded with material. All three seem nice, gentle, and trustworthy. They are clean-cut but utterly generic, without tattoos or other discernible markings.

You allow them to stay with you for the evening, as the temperatures will likely not be survivable if they are stuck outside. They drop their packs in the main room, and settle in in the spare bedroom. During the evening, while one walks around, his knee bumps into a pack, causing it to slump over. He doesn't notice it, but, documents and photographs spill out. You walk over to prop the pack back up, and stuff the material back inside, but, as you do, you realize that the documents clearly indicate that these three are part of an international kiddie porn ring that is secretly smuggling this stuff to a distributor in Canada. Disgustingly, the pictures confirm this.

You walk to your cell phone, but it has no service. You remember that you are at least 5 miles from any trustworthy cell service - but you can't leave, as your car is buried under 3 days worth of snow heavy snow. You try your landline, but it is dead too. You realize that, if you leave, the awake one of the three will hear you, and since you will have to travel on foot (given your car's buried-ness) in awful weather you will never make it to authorities before the three leave and escape. They are too generic looking to be described successfully to the police. You notice that you have fresh, dry wood in your fireplace just begging for a fire. You have a lighter on you, and this awful stuff seems flammable. You look at a nearby cabinet. Inside is a revolver with six shots. You also remember how you've always thought the coal heater downstairs has an opening just wide enough to fit yourself through - and you are bigger than any of them.

What do you do?

[Spider-Dan]

First off: murder is not on the table.  If you're 20 miles away from civilization in remote northern Montana, why would you care about incinerators anyway?  Walk 1 mile in a random direction, dig a hole, problem solved.

That being said, I'd say the best option is to grab some coffee, make some excuse about a project you're working on, and stay up throughout the night.  The next day, their car will still be broken.  Before they leave to fix their car, you ask for help unburying your car so you can go into town; this shouldn't be much of a problem given your previous night's hospitality.  You can offer them a ride to their car, which will almost certainly have a license plate.  If they decline, fine; drive to cell coverage and make the call to the sheriff's office/border patrol.  The fact that there is a group of three men with loaded backpacks should be identification enough.

If one of the guys wants to go with you into town (say, to get a car part), even better.

[Sunstroke]

I'm going to have to "cheat" a little bit, just because a combination of three details provided in the scenario would prevent the touchy situation inside the cabin from ever occurring. Those three details are:

* "You are staying in a modern log cabin in a remote, northern part of Montana for a week . This cabin is over 20 miles away from civilization"
* "Inside is a revolver with six shots"
* "All three have packs that look heavy-loaded with material"

In the situation you described, those three individuals would never make it into my remote cabin. Before opening the door to three strangers, I am going to communicate with them through the door (or through a chain-lock, if available), and ensure that they see that I am holding the aforementioned loaded revolver. I tell the generic trio of strangers that I'll be glad to offer shelter, but I don't allow people to bring weapons or drugs into my home, so...I'm going to need to see what's in your packs before I can let you in. I apologize to them, but explain that "it's a crazy effing world out there and a guy can't be too careful..."  This seems a reasonable request to me, given the remote nature of the situation, and the numerical disadvantage I would have, should a conflict occur. An honest traveler facing an extreme weather-emergency isn't going to worry about the request...who cares if a stranger sees your change of underwear, extra shirts, laptops, shaving kits, etc... The only people who would have a problem with this request would be people you don't want in your home in the first place.

The three nondescript amigos would then face a bit of a dilemma. I'm armed and obviously prepared for trouble...but the night is so cold.

We could write another chapter or two based on various responses to the request for backpack disclosure, but I think I've already avoided the problem. If the question would then become "If the three amigos dumped their packs and let me see the contents, would I allow them to come in? No...  Would I allow them to come in if they burned all their kiddie porn in the yard outside the cabin? No... Even if it means that they will certainly die? No...

The moment they dump their packs, they complete the transformation from "three strangers I should help" to "three evil scumbags that can freeze to death, for all I care." The reason behind not letting them in, even after burning the kiddie porn materials is simple... I feel that particular evil (pedophilia, and even more so, pedophilia for profit) is one of the worst and most vile evils of all, and anyone capable of that evil is certainly capable of all the other evils (murder, etc...), and no way am I letting that through the door.

I apologize for pulling a Kobayashi Maru there. I just couldn't see myself in that hypothetical scenario.

I'd send them back into the storm... novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius

[Spider-Dan]

Sunstroke, you said that you'd tell them you wouldn't allow weapons or drugs into your home.  What if they said, "Well, some of the stuff we have in our packs are some very explicit pictures of the three of us having some particularly raunchy gay sex, and we'd like to keep those private.  Can we agree to leave our packs outside?"

[dolphins4life]

What a crazy situation.  And what does that title of the thread mean?

[Sunstroke]

Sunstroke, you said that you'd tell them you wouldn't allow weapons or drugs into your home.  What if they said, "Well, some of the stuff we have in our packs are some very explicit pictures of the three of us having some particularly raunchy gay sex, and we'd like to keep those private.  Can we agree to leave our packs outside?"

A good play, but I'd likely come back with "it would be pretty hard to shock me...go ahead and show me anyway."  If it was just them having consensual sex with other dudes, I'd not only let them in, but I wouldn't even require them to leave the material outside. Consensual gay sex isn't evil...but pedophilia and child exploitation is.

[Sunstroke]

What a crazy situation.  And what does that title of the thread mean?

It is the Latin beginning of the phrase that spawned the cliche' "kill them all, let God sort them out."

Caedite eos novit enim dominus qui sunt eius

[dolphins4life]

Anyway, I agree with what Stroke said earlier.  I would not let them in my house without them emptying their backpacks.

[Spider-Dan]

A good play, but I'd likely come back with "it would be pretty hard to shock me...go ahead and show me anyway."

I was thinking of it less from the perspective of what would shock you and more from the standpoint of (them representing that they have) a desire to protect their intimate privacy.

I take your statement to mean that just leaving their bags outside (regardless of the rationale) would not be an acceptable offer?  If your stated concern was weapons or drugs and they agree to leave their belongings outside (at whatever distance you determine), wouldn't that meet your criteria?

To set up a slightly different (and not pre-determinedly evil) scenario, suppose it's a couple on their honeymoon caught in a flash blizzard, who have pictures and videos of their wedding night sexcapade in their bag.  Are they faced with a choice of "freeze to death" or "show this stranger your newlywed bride's goods"?  Because that's stepping into a different kind of exploitation, heading towards the region of "I'll let you in if you show me your tits."

In short, it's easy to say (in "hindsight") that of course it's reasonable to demand that they show you anything they have on them, because we already know these guys are pedophiles.  But if you didn't already know that, saying "show me your most intimate pictures or go die in a snowdrift" is, at best, sketchy.  It'd almost be preferable to just say, "Sorry, there's only one of me and there's three of you, so I don't care if you're pedophiles, mass murderers, Jehovah's Witnesses, or singing nuns... you aren't coming in."

[Sunstroke]

I was thinking of it less from the perspective of what would shock you and more from the standpoint of (them representing that they have) a desire to protect their intimate privacy.

That was understood, though I would say that if I flipped roles and were playing the ringleader of the kiddie porn trio... If I was presented with the "show me your backpack contents" situation, I might use the "gay porn" diversion as a way to perhaps avoid the disclosure by playing on the doorkeeper's potential sexual insecurities or social embarrassment.

I take your statement to mean that just leaving their bags outside (regardless of the rationale) would not be an acceptable offer?  If your stated concern was weapons or drugs and they agree to leave their belongings outside (at whatever distance you determine), wouldn't that meet your criteria?

Nah, I still want to see inside the bags. I'm not looking to microscope your shit, or go through your wallet, anything like that...but I do want to be sure that your packs aren't holding guns or saran-wrapped bricks of heroin before I let the owners of those backpacks into my secure home.

To set up a slightly different (and not pre-determinedly evil) scenario, suppose it's a couple on their honeymoon caught in a flash blizzard, who have pictures and videos of their wedding night sexcapade in their bag.  Are they faced with a choice of "freeze to death" or "show this stranger your newlywed bride's goods"?  Because that's stepping into a different kind of exploitation, heading towards the region of "I'll let you in if you show me your tits."

So dramatic, I love it...

I don't want to see pictures of the bride, nor do I have any interest in video of the bride performing a Somali Canoe on her groom. I don't need to see her tits, though with the cold, I can only imagine they'd exceed maximum perkiness. I don't need to inspect her frilly undergarments or perform a full cavity search. I just need to reasonably verify that neither of them are packing heat or are otherwise engaged in blatantly unlawful congress.

That said, once they come in and have a few drinks, if they want to consensually share some pictures or video...or cavity searches, then that's a whole new ballgame. 

[Spider-Dan]

Fair enough.

It's not that demanding to search their bags is unreasonable (especially given the circumstances), but I thought I'd flip the hypothetical premise from "Would you murder a pedophile?" to "Would you allow someone to freeze to death if they insisted on protecting their privacy?"

[Sunstroke]

I didn't consider your hypothetical flip to be unfair either...  I just wanted to be clear that my motives had nothing to do with controlling other people, or exploiting others' helplessness...they were 100% focused on maintaining my own security.

[Spider-Dan]

So let's say this... suppose, in the first case, that the three guys say they have pictures and documents that they want to keep private (be it for embarrassing sex, business trade secrets, what have you), but they will let you see that they are only carrying paper and developed film (in other words, they show you the backsides of the papers and pictures).

Would that be good enough to let them in?  Or is it a criteria of entry that you actually get to see their pictures and read their documents?

[Sunstroke]

^^^ I considered that as well, and as long as I could see no threat to me, or any blatantly obvious illegal situation, I'd likely be satisfied. That said, if they open their backpacks and there is nothing but stacks of pictures, DVDs and other obvious video material, such as is described in the original scenario, I might consider all of the information and think "hmmm, what is going on here"...and ask to see a sample of the photos. Hard to say, really...I'd definitely be curious, but I would feel some measure of restraint based on a respect for privacy.

That was one of those "in the real world, shit doesn't work that way" parts of the story. If those three had backpacks full of kiddie porn they were muling up to Canada, and they are given a room in the cabin to escape the storm, they certainly are not going to leave their backpacks in the living room when two of the three went off to sleep.

[SCFinfan]

I'd send them back into the storm... novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius

I *KNEW* you'd be the one to get it!