A Military View of the Bundy Ranch Situation: Why Everyone Should Be Worried

reply to post by Taggart

Yeah but anyone who actually looks at this case and is saying the police are correct
are leading themselves down a VERY VERY slippery slope.

This thread is about the tactics of the law enforcement officers, not the merits of the case.

Federal gov wants them out, takes them to Federal court , When Courts ignore facts
this is what happens. I understand he has been given PLENTY of warning
still does not make it right.

You seem to know more about the case than the courts did. Present those facts in the appropriate thread, please.

DJW001
reply to post by Taggart

 

Yeah but anyone who actually looks at this case and is saying the police are correct
are leading themselves down a VERY VERY slippery slope.

This thread is about the tactics of the law enforcement officers, not the merits of the case.

Federal gov wants them out, takes them to Federal court , When Courts ignore facts
this is what happens. I understand he has been given PLENTY of warning
still does not make it right.

You seem to know more about the case than the courts did. Present those facts in the appropriate thread, please.

What knowing about the land rights? all the way back? how things changed and THEY allowed NM to use the water from their land or however that worked. There are MANY threads on it already perhaps you should try reading them.

DrMescalito

DJW001
reply to post by Taggart

 

Yeah but anyone who actually looks at this case and is saying the police are correct
are leading themselves down a VERY VERY slippery slope.

This thread is about the tactics of the law enforcement officers, not the merits of the case.

Federal gov wants them out, takes them to Federal court , When Courts ignore facts
this is what happens. I understand he has been given PLENTY of warning
still does not make it right.

You seem to know more about the case than the courts did. Present those facts in the appropriate thread, please.

What knowing about the land rights? all the way back? how things changed and THEY allowed NM to use the water from their land or however that worked. There are MANY threads on it already perhaps you should try reading them.

Why? This thread is about law enforcement tactics, not about the laws being enforced.

...In fact, folks, I happen to believe based on the facts that Cliven Bundy is WRONG. He had plenty of time to remove the offending cattle.

There was a lot of shady stuff surrounding the case, I know. But black and white letter of the law says Mr. Bundy is in the wrong here.

THAT SAID after reviewing images on line, reviewing witness testimony and other news reports I find the TACTICS of the BLM and supporting agencies to be military style tactics based on past and CURRENT experience in a war zone. Experience that tells me this kind of thing should NOT be happening here.

Please folks don't get things confused. This whole thread was never about the validity of Mr. Bundy's claims. It is entirely about a federal police force, and by extension local police forces using military tactics and equipment on the people. That is something I am fervently against as a professional soldier.

The only people you can even say I back on this issue is the armed militia who rightfully, in my view, showed up to take care of business.

Important update: BLM claiming no deal reached!

www.prisonplanet.com...

Despite Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie announcing on Saturday that the BLM had agreed to cease its operation against Bundy, the BLM now asserts that it played no part in the deal and will continue to pursue Bundy “administratively and judicially” for the $1 million in grazing fees it claims Bundy owes the feds.

Since Bundy has steadfastly refused to pay the fee, offering instead to pay it to Clark County, the feds will have no option other than to send armed men to arrest Bundy or restart the operation to confiscate his cattle. Such action will then prompt thousands of Americans to rally to Bundy’s defense just as they did last week, threatening another standoff.

“The door isn’t closed. We’ll figure out how to move forward with this,” BLM spokesman Craig Leff told the Associated Press, adding, “The BLM and National Park Service did not cut any deal and negotiate anything, there was no deal we made.”

So what, Sheriff Gillespie lied right to the people's faces? Or is the BLM now backing out of the deal? WTF.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


You think this whole issue was built to bring militia fear back into the public view?

I believe the militia in Nevada won the PR campaign this time around.

reply to post by projectvxn


No

reply to post by OpinionatedB


How utterly and totally convenient wouldn't you say?

reply to post by Logarock


way too convenient for my taste.

projectvxn
...In fact, folks, I happen to believe based on the facts that Cliven Bundy is WRONG. He had plenty of time to remove the offending cattle.

There was a lot of shady stuff surrounding the case, I know. But black and white letter of the law says Mr. Bundy is in the wrong here.

THAT SAID after reviewing images on line, reviewing witness testimony and other news reports I find the TACTICS of the BLM and supporting agencies to be military style tactics based on past and CURRENT experience in a war zone. Experience that tells me this kind of thing should NOT be happening here.

Please folks don't get things confused. This whole thread was never about the validity of Mr. Bundy's claims. It is entirely about a federal police force, and by extension local police forces using military tactics and equipment on the people. That is something I am fervently against as a professional soldier.

The only people you can even say I back on this issue is the armed militia who rightfully, in my view, showed up to take care of business.

In general I would agree with you, but not in this particular situation. For the years the Bundy family has continually stated that they will fire on anyone attempting to enforce the courts decision. From some of their interviews it comes across as if they want it to get bloody. I do not see where the government has any choice but to do what they are doing for their own safety in doing the job they are required to do. If the government can't enforce the courts decision than there is no rule of law. Believe me I am no fan of law enforcement nor of how the justice system is being perverted on a daily basis. But in looking at this case and asking are the actions they are taking in this case appropriate to the situation given the statements the Bundy family have publicly made, I can't help but say they are.

The militia groups showing up to aid this man are not patriots nor are they freedom fighters. They are little more than delusional anarchists trying to live out a fantasy in which they martyr themselves in the hopes of igniting a civil war. They are making matters worse and clearly backing a man that continually ignores the court and threatens violence against the officers of the court trying to do their job.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


You know I have been thinking the exact same thing. Of all things and of all people, why the heck be willing to die for this guy when he is clearly in the wrong.

But... I was talking to my husband about it, how I felt and what I thought and also what my husband thought.

Like these "free speech zones" once upon a time, yes the government did try to keep sight seers and protestors out of the equation and away from immediate harm if there was any kind of a stand off or whatever going where the police didn't know how it was going to turn out...Back when I was growing up we were told it was for our safety.

Now... they are in your face when they say "free speech zone" That is saying "we give you your "rights" whenever and wherever we please. Your freedom is something we allow" Words DO mean something.

This has been like this, this slow erosion of our constitutional rights for over 10 years pretty hardcore, and its getting worse and worse every day.

What my husband believes is that Bundy was a catalyst, while I have been viewing it as the reason. The erosion of rights is the reason, and Bundy was only a catalyst. This DOES make a huge psychological difference actually, and it is something that changed my point of view concerning those who went out to support Bundy.

I think the government chose this standoff with Bundy for this very reason too. People were getting more heated by the day, and the heat was starting to spread to others who were not initially anti-government.

In effort to stop the spread, a bad "cause" will make the entire militia movement look bad, and the government back to looking like the "good guys" in the eyes of the average person.

And Bundy was perfect too... played all like a fiddle.

reply to post by projectvxn


Even the Blaze has backed off claiming there were any snipers.

1. Did the Feds Overreact?

Contract cowboys and hundreds of armed federal agents descended on the publicly held property last week, bringing with them dozens of retrofitted SUVs, helicopters and heavy duty hauling equipment (the Bundy family claims the government also deployed snipers and “heavy artillery,” but these claims have not been confirmed by secondary sources).

This prompted the obvious question: How did this go from a property dispute to something featuring plenty of armed agents and even a Bundy relative being tased?

Consider that there has been a lot of saber-rattling rhetoric being used.

For instance, Bundy once casually told reporters in an interview that he keeps several firearms at his ranch, adding that he would do “whatever it takes” to protect his cattle.

“I’ve got to protect my property … If people come to monkey with what’s mine, I’ll call the county sheriff. If that don’t work, I’ll gather my friends and kids and we’ll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws,” he said in reference to what he repeatedly calls a “range war.”

Bundy has also regularly invoked Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, claiming often and loudly that he’s the “last cowboy standing.”

Even his wife, Carol, said in an interview: “I’ve got a shotgun … It’s loaded and I know how to use it. We’re ready to do what we have to do, but we’d rather win this in the court of public opinion.”

And then there are the militias that showed up to support Bundy.

“This is what we do, we provide armed response,” Jim Lordy with Operation Mutual Aid told a local station. “They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”

Still, the militia members and protesters insist it’s the government that became violent first with the tasing incident, as well as the mere presence of the armed federal agents. And Ammon Bundy, Cliven’s son who was tased, did restrict rifles within camp last week:

Either way, it appears the language being used has put at least a few federal officials on edge.

The Blaze

As I said in the thread based off this article:
"How nice of the Blaze to report any actual facts after they stirred up militias. That site is going to get someone killed one of these days. Maybe Glenn Beck is learning a thing or two now that he's being sued for defamation. Of course that makes the Blaze a traitor now right? Facts make you an enemy to the Right these days.

The idiocy being paraded since the original Blaze article is goddamn shameful."

Yes US law enforcement, is too militarized, I've written threads about the issue also... the thing is we need to be careful that we're not crying wolf when the majority of the public don't quite realize what's been going on toward that end, and don't respond well to people hopping up and down (not saying you were, I understand your concern) making claims easily debunked.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

You know I have been thinking the exact same thing. Of all things and of all people, why the heck be willing to die for this guy when he is clearly in the wrong.

This is my biggest concern about this whole issue... Why would they be willing die for this guy? I think it's because of the misinformation they were fed from Alex Jones, Glenn Beck etc... If I were to believe what either of those two said I probably would have gone to defend the guy too.

Both claimed the land was Bundy's, both claimed, initially, that there were snipers and both claimed all the heavy apparatus (helicopters) were being used in a military way when they were being used to round up the cattle.

Drudge, the Blaze, Breitbart, Infowars... are playing a very dangerous game with people's minds and someone is going to get killed over it.

reply to post by Kali74

Yes US law enforcement, is too militarized, I've written threads about the issue also.

Law enforcement is becoming more militarized because criminals are becoming more militarized.

reply to post by DJW001


I disagree. The criminals are no more militarized than they ever were. If we didn't need any militarization of the police back when we had Hoffa and the rest of the big time mafia then why do we need it now?

OpinionatedB
reply to post by DJW001

 

I disagree. The criminals are no more militarized than they ever were. If we didn't need any militarization of the police back when we had Hoffa and the rest of the big time mafia then why do we need it now?

edit on 14-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

The FBI didn't even acknowledge the existence of the Mafia until the 1960s. Please read up on the history of crime in America. Check out what happened to John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde and other violent criminals. The police have always fought fire with fire. All that has changed is that they are getting better trained as they adopt newer and more powerful equipment. This is happening in response to highly armed criminal gangs that received their weapons training in the military.

Kali74
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

You know I have been thinking the exact same thing. Of all things and of all people, why the heck be willing to die for this guy when he is clearly in the wrong.

This is my biggest concern about this whole issue... Why would they be willing die for this guy? I think it's because of the misinformation they were fed from Alex Jones, Glenn Beck etc... If I were to believe what either of those two said I probably would have gone to defend the guy too.

Both claimed the land was Bundy's, both claimed, initially, that there were snipers and both claimed all the heavy apparatus (helicopters) were being used in a military way when they were being used to round up the cattle.

Drudge, the Blaze, Breitbart, Infowars... are playing a very dangerous game with people's minds and someone is going to get killed over it.

These militia groups have been strong out there long before any of these new sources existed. And Glenn has been carful to promote a non violent approach to everything. With a lose definition of promoting violence and getting folks stirred up into a state of mind that would lead to violence you can find what your looking for at any number of the large outlets, MSMBC ect. One can find a large spectrum of violence promoters out there.....right on your TV set.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by DJW001

 

I disagree. The criminals are no more militarized than they ever were. If we didn't need any militarization of the police back when we had Hoffa and the rest of the big time mafia then why do we need it now?

edit on 14-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

All one can say here is as a government grows more oppressive and unconstitutional the larger the "criminal" list grows. The HLS "watch" list comes to mind.

This is happening in response to highly armed criminal gangs that received their weapons training in the military.

Not quite sure I understand that? Are you talking about the Mara Salvatrucha or some of the extremest groups in the Ozarks that I have dealt with? They are both killers with no remorse or goal other than madness.