AL - Adam Simjee, 22, a carjacking turned robbery turned child in the woods with a gun

ClaireNC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
15,443
Unbelievable. Women “living off the grid“ implies it’s by choice to live that way. Or are they homeless due to circumstances? Are they part of a larger group? A new kind of “gang” that lives off the grid and survives on robbing people?
 

Curious_in_NC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
7,996
Unbelievable. Women “living off the grid“ implies it’s by choice to live that way. Or are they homeless due to circumstances? Are they part of a larger group? A new kind of “gang” that lives off the grid and survives on robbing people?
Those are possibilities. A press release from the Clay County Sherriff on FB was removed due to a gag order. It may have had more information about the group's circumstances.

The events took place near the Pinhoti Trail, a fairly popular hiking route which runs from near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail south through Georgia and Alabama.
 

RickshawFan

Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
34,325
Me, I don’t see it as complex. There’s an alert and articulate witness who saw it all go down and was a victim herself. And there’s LE discovery in the woods, as they have stated. Both apparent perps are still alive. That’s as about as good as it gets as far as clarity in the early days of a case. IMO

While there may be affordable housing issues that caused a group to live on National Forest land, this has been happening more frequently lately for no “need” reason at all. People are watching “survivalist” channels on YouTube, IG, and “survivalist” reality shows and getting the idea they could go live off someone else’s property forever.

IMO there is nothing “survivalist” about any of these channels, ‘cos there’s no survival necessity. These “survivalists” can quit any time they want, they’re not alone (at least one other person has to be there to take the photos) although they claim to be, and they’re doing it to make money. That’s capitalism, not “survival”.

While “leave no trace” is rule of thumb for those of us who want to see pristine landscapes left to our descendants, “survivalists” are predators. They kill animals, build fires (this can change a whole ecosystem, btw), hack down trees, fish endangered species out of their home waters on our national lands, the ones that belong to all of us and the creatures that make their homes there. And are they packing out their trash and fecal matter? Of course not!

On top of all this, Search and Rescue has to go looking for these types and bringing them out when they get injured or lost.

Canada is now prosecuting these types for the damage they cause. Here are 3 cases, one involving a fatality of a wannabe, another “tip of the iceberg” charges. And all of these folks have large followings on SM that bring them $$$$ and glamorize what they’re doing. Consider as you read, the resources it takes to go after, rescue, or recover these “survivalists”.




Then, of course, there’s the “Into the Wild” obsession, which has caused yet another death this week.

Here’s a good-read story on that topic. Rangers eventually had to remove the bus, because there were so many SAR trips needed. But still they go there…

 
Last edited:

RickshawFan

Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
34,325
Forgot to mention…
The other kind of “survival in the woods” belongs to “grow sites” belonging to drug cartels on public lands. It’s possible the Alabama case is in this category. A 5-year-old wielding a shotgun sounds like the kind of setup in these armed and booby-trapped encampments.
 

evilwise

Unknown Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
13,688
Well, I think quite obviously institutions like notably children's services and law enforcement were not covering these people the way they would have a decade or two ago but to be candid, I am referencing more esoteric social institutions like property, community and family. Why did the owner of this land not express concerns? Why didn't neighbors? Can we no longer safely stop for a lone woman standing by the side of the road begging for help? Where was this child's father?

The fact that now in 2022 the answers to these questions can not just be assumed but will no doubt be aggressively defended in the name of so-called "social justice" only proves that we all are being pulled down to the level of the lowest common denominator just to be equal. I for one have had about enough.
 

caradana

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
299
Reaction score
2,853
Agree with @evilwise and glad a dialogue around this story is picking up. Also seeing this as a testament to no safety net for a kid whose parents were likely mentally ill. I wonder if there has ever been any legal or medical trace of this kid.
 

caradana

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
299
Reaction score
2,853
@RickshawFan appreciate your points and curious, is it possible that this was not an intentional survivalist choice made by these two women and was instead a choice born of some combination of mental illness, paranoia, poverty, future criminal intent and simply running out of cash for a motel or short-term housing? Very interested in what is found in this camp by authorities.
 

RickshawFan

Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
34,325
@RickshawFan appreciate your points and curious, is it possible that this was not an intentional survivalist choice made by these two women and was instead a choice born of some combination of mental illness, paranoia, poverty, future criminal intent and simply running out of cash for a motel or short-term housing? Very interested in what is found in this camp by authorities.
Yes, that's very possible. That's why I brought up affordable housing. Evidently, there were more than 2 women out there, since there were many tents.
 

RickshawFan

Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
34,325
Well, I think quite obviously institutions like notably children's services and law enforcement were not covering these people the way they would have a decade or two ago but to be candid, I am referencing more esoteric social institutions like property, community and family. Why did the owner of this land not express concerns? Why didn't neighbors? Can we no longer safely stop for a lone woman standing by the side of the road begging for help? Where was this child's father?

The fact that now in 2022 the answers to these questions can not just be assumed but will no doubt be aggressively defended in the name of so-called "social justice" only proves that we all are being pulled down to the level of the lowest common denominator just to be equal. I for one have had about enough.
The owner of the property is US, via the federal government. Concerns are being expressed. Evidently, the camp with multiple tents was hidden 'til now. And now that it's been discovered, something is being done about it.
This problem of "living off the grid" on someone else's property has become rampant and popularized on TV.
And, yes, social services belong in this particular situation, since there's a child involved.
 

RickshawFan

Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
34,325
Unbelievable. Women “living off the grid“ implies it’s by choice to live that way. Or are they homeless due to circumstances? Are they part of a larger group? A new kind of “gang” that lives off the grid and survives on robbing people?
The women do indeed seem to have chosen to live off-grid. You don't just kinda land in a spot in the woods with a whole bunch of tents. However, their circumstances might explain their choices. Or not.

I note: it's not against the law to camp on national forest land. Hard to do without damaging it, though, so you could be liable for charges. This might include fines for something as basic as building a fire, leaving fecal matter in the woods, trash, abandoned tents, killing animals....
 

Curious_in_NC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
7,996
@RickshawFan appreciate your points and curious, is it possible that this was not an intentional survivalist choice made by these two women and was instead a choice born of some combination of mental illness, paranoia, poverty, future criminal intent and simply running out of cash for a motel or short-term housing? Very interested in what is found in this camp by authorities.
I agree and suspect this was less a case of "survivalist" thinking and more a case of a crime driven by desperation.

What do the rest of you think of the gag order for this? Is that typical of such cases? The rationale was to make sure there is a fair trial, but this crime already has substantial national and international coverage.
 

Curious_in_NC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
7,996
Probably not related, but I ran across a John Doe found at another makeshift camp in Talladega National Forest in late 2020. It looks like it was about 10-12 miles southwest of this crime's location. I couldn't find one, so I started a WS thread for them. Apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate.

 

Laughing

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
13,042
Reaction score
44,769
Me, I don’t see it as complex. There’s an alert and articulate witness who saw it all go down and was a victim herself. And there’s LE discovery in the woods, as they have stated. Both apparent perps are still alive. That’s as about as good as it gets as far as clarity in the early days of a case. IMO

While there may be affordable housing issues that caused a group to live on National Forest land, this has been happening more frequently lately for no “need” reason at all. People are watching “survivalist” channels on YouTube, IG, and “survivalist” reality shows and getting the idea they could go live off someone else’s property forever.

IMO there is nothing “survivalist” about any of these channels, ‘cos there’s no survival necessity. These “survivalists” can quit any time they want, they’re not alone (at least one other person has to be there to take the photos) although they claim to be, and they’re doing it to make money. That’s capitalism, not “survival”.

While “leave no trace” is rule of thumb for those of us who want to see pristine landscapes left to our descendants, “survivalists” are predators. They kill animals, build fires (this can change a whole ecosystem, btw), hack down trees, fish endangered species out of their home waters on our national lands, the ones that belong to all of us and the creatures that make their homes there. And are they packing out their trash and fecal matter? Of course not!

On top of all this, Search and Rescue has to go looking for these types and bringing them out when they get injured or lost.

Canada is now prosecuting these types for the damage they cause. Here are 3 cases, one involving a fatality of a wannabe, another “tip of the iceberg” charges. And all of these folks have large followings on SM that bring them $$$$ and glamorize what they’re doing. Consider as you read, the resources it takes to go after, rescue, or recover these “survivalists”.




Then, of course, there’s the “Into the Wild” obsession, which has caused yet another death this week.

Here’s a good-read story on that topic. Rangers eventually had to remove the bus, because there were so many SAR trips needed. But still they go there…


Good friend of ours did permitting in a National Forest.

Please don't say "Rainbow Family" near him....

jmho ymmv lrr
 

RickshawFan

Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
34,325
I once camped for 6 weeks on National Forest land while I was homeless. I was actually working at the time, and managed to put away enough money for security payment on an apartment to fix my situation.
The camping was breathtaking.... I was by a lake with Cascade volcanoes in the background. Alpenglow every night. Fires weren't permitted, but I didn't need one of those anyway: I have all the gear I need. It was up in the mountains, though, and I had to bail when it began to snow.
But it was a legit Forest Service numbered free spot (I overstayed my 2 weeks, though), and I wasn't toting a gun.
So, I understand the need to camp while getting a life back together. I just don't understand any of the rest of this case.

I wonder what these women were doing....? No word?
 

RickshawFan

Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
34,325
This is what led me to believe the National Forest camp was something other than a social service need:

Over the next several hours, sheriff's deputies received information they may have been part of a group of people “living off the grid” somewhere in the National Forest. This group was reported to be armed and potentially violent.

and

The sheriff's office said the tracking team lead law enforcement to a large group of tents that had been set up in the National Forest in what appeared to be a base camp.

 

RickshawFan

Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
34,325
I agree and suspect this was less a case of "survivalist" thinking and more a case of a crime driven by desperation.

What do the rest of you think of the gag order for this? Is that typical of such cases? The rationale was to make sure there is a fair trial, but this crime already has substantial national and international coverage.
I’m not so sure, as flagging random motorists down on a ruse and holding them at gunpoint and shooting to kill would generally not reflect desperation. They would reflect criminal thinking.

Desperation might have looked more like flagging a motorist down, no ruse, and simply asking for help. Clearly this young couple was willing to be helpful.
 
Top