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

The Militarization of Police and the Growing Police State

I've been following the Bundy Ranch issue for a long time now. Being a resident of Nevada, not much escapes me on the matter.

Many of you know that I am also an active duty soldier in the United States Army, currently deployed to Afghanistan...Been out here for quite some time. It is from the perspective of my experience out here that I want to shape that situation because I think it is relevant and terribly important.

Let me start by saying this. Mr. Bundy lost the court case. In America when you lose the court case you do what the court tells you. The Bundy cattle drive in the area is trespassing. HOWEVER, that is NOT what this issue is about. It is about the heavy handed response by the Federal Government on Mr. Bundy's ranch that has me concerned. Wherever you fall on this issue, I hope it has you concerned as well.

When this started hitting the national spotlight, and what sparked the protests, was when BLM officials showed up to the ranch with snipers poised in overwatch positions. As time progressed protesters started showing up in solidarity with the Bundy's. The police and feds used some pretty heavy handed tactics on the protesters and setting up a "free speech zone" that cause even Gov. Brian Sandoval to say that what the BLM and other agencies involved are doing down there is nothing short of intimidation. That's when the militias started showing up.

I then wake up to the news that they have cut off cell towers and put up a no-fly zone around the Bundy ranch and that they are now setting up a compound for command and control as well as calling in tactical teams into the area.

Here's where I start to get really worried about the militarization of law enforcement.

When we do deliberate operations there are some basic things that are done:

Control of the battle space:

1. Set up a ROZ

2. Cut off or jam communications

3. Control air and ground traffic and issue frequencies for civilians and others to use to plot their routes clear of the ROZ

4. Set up command and control assets near the target area if one does not exist

5. Call air assets to station to monitor situation from the air

6. Execute operation.

We have a set up ROZ. We have jamming of communications. We have the set up of command and control. Air assets are already on station.

There's only one thing left to do. Execute Operation. What that operation will be if not for the continued rounding up of cattle I don't know. They already had the assets necessary to perform that operation...Why set up a controlled battlespace zone?

If you are concerned about the increasing level of militarization of law enforcement and the growing threat of a police state, look no further than what is happening at the Bundy ranch. The Feds are preparing for war and they will, at some point, execute.

reply to post by projectvxn


So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

reply to post by projectvxn


I think the Fed's overstepped the line a year ago in Boston when they openly trolled the neighborhoods like some Navy Seal team in Pakistan. Granted they got the guys who did it, or whatever, but I fear that was only the beginning. What a lot of creeps. Glad we have you and yours.

Well the excuse is always "we want to be prepared"

At what point does it stop? [edit] and also prepared for what exactly? millions of armed drug cartel people invading with planes and tanks and stuff? Isnt that what the national guard/army is for? Should we just just give the army police badges and call it a day?

Are we going to see cops with bloody bazookas? How about some tanks? They practically have tanks now.

Soon there will be thousands of drones to "protect you" but if theres nothing really 'terroristy' going n, they will catch anyone breaking any laws.

The UK is usually X years behind the states with most things, i really hope this one doesnt catch on. Every time i go to the states i feel nervous around cops, ive got a perfectly clean record and im not into anything bad, im just scared around them. Which is not really the "approachable" police force you want. I asked a customs cop to borrow a pen so i could fill in a visa waver (the plane ran out, AA suck), he said no. I was stunned. Welcome to america bitch

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

We have had those rights for, what, 200 years? This overwhelming attitude of shoot first ask questions later attitude by the cops has been something that had become a serious problem in the past 30 years or so and it is escalating.

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

No. But there is a wrong way and right way to do that.

When you start CUTTING OFF COMMS you are sending a message.

That message is pretty obvious from a military perspective.

"There's no where to hide and you can't call for help when we show up to kill you".

Those are Americans in there man. Not a bunch of terrorists.

And what is up with the ROZ? You only set up a ROZ if you're going to have danger to aircraft as a result of fire missions, bombs dropped, air assaults, or you have drones on station.

How is this an adequate tactical response to a situation the FEDS escalated by showing up with snipers on overwatch?

I dont really understand this whole ranch issue, would somone be a gem and message me a really basic overview [i do not wish to litter this nice mans thread], everything i find on google is just confusing me.

Id like to know what the ranch is and a little on this whole fiasco.

If anyone would do that, id greatly appreciate it.

EDIT -> thank you Kandinsky, he/she filled me in. Thank you.

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

Second Amendment 'Rights' are a joke when compared to the capabilities the government has, and WILL USE on ANY American that thinks he has the right to exercise the Second Amendment.

nugget1

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

Second Amendment 'Rights' are a joke when compared to the capabilities the government has, and WILL USE on ANY American that thinks he has the right to exercise the Second Amendment.

This is the second thread you have made that comment.

And this will be the second thread I will tell you this:

They need soldiers to do it. And while I am sure they can get some. They can't get all.

It wouldn't be as black and white as you think it is. Most of us in the military have families and friends we care about. We're not about to run our nation into a free fire zone. Never mind the logistical nightmare of holding the continental United States.

reply to post by projectvxn


I'm going to be honest I would not stand with this Bundy guy.

He has had many years to get his cattle somewhere else when he lost his permit to graze his cattle on that land. He wanted to fight in court, fine... but that doesn't mean he should not have spent a LOT of time preparing to get his cattle off land he no longer had the right to graze on.

I'm very law abiding as a whole - although I am sure we all have had our moments in time - but as a whole I seriously respect our system of laws.

The second he lost that court case, he needed to get his cattle off the land he was now seriously trespassing on. That's it.

Instead he is getting protesters and militias and armed people out there ready for a small war... why do all this and NOT expect the government is going to say okay, if its war you want then its war...

Right or wrong he had his day in court, and over 15 years to prepare to move his cattle elsewhere. seriously? so instead of being proactive and doing what any sane person would do he tries to get militia's involvement and protestors etc out there?

I used to raise cattle, 15 years of free grazing is enough time to come up with plenty of money to PURCHASE your own goddamn land to put your cattle on and from what I can gather that is exactly how long its been since he lost his permit to graze his cattle on that land!

projectvxn

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

No. But there is a wrong way and right way to do that.

When you start CUTTING OFF COMMS you are sending a message.

That message is pretty obvious from a military perspective.

"There's no where to hide and you can't call for help when we show up to kill you".

Those are Americans in there man. Not a bunch of terrorists.

And what is up with the ROZ? You only set up a ROZ if you're going to have danger to aircraft as a result of fire missions, bombs dropped, air assaults, or you have drones on station.

How is this an adequate tactical response to a situation the FEDS escalated by showing up with snipers on overwatch?

edit on pSat, 12 Apr 2014 05:58:05 -0500201412America/Chicago2014-04-12T05:58:05-05:0030vx4 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

How does the officer in charge of the operation know what the capacities of the objective are? There are militias in this country that are as well equipped as the Taliban.

DJW001
How does the officer in charge of the operation know what the capacities of the objective are? There are militias in this country that are as well equipped as the Taliban.

Probably, american made weapons of all types (not just loads of AKs), bullet proof vests etc

The amount of access an American has to this sort of thing is simply stunning, sure the good stuff isnt publicly available, but im sure there are ways for the determined and wealthy.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Instead he is getting protesters and militias and armed people out there ready for a small war... why do all this and NOT expect the government is going to say okay, if its war you want then its war...

Right or wrong he had his day in court, and over 15 years to prepare to move his cattle elsewhere. seriously? so instead of being proactive and doing what any sane person would do he tries to get militia's involvement and protestors etc out there?

I agree that he is legally in the wrong.

That isn't my issue.

1. The BLM showed up with snipers. No justification for that at all.

2. Mr. Bundy didn't call in any militias. They started showing up AFTER the police and BLM officials started roughing people up and corralling them in the "free speech zone".

3. You do NOT set up a ROZ and cut off comms like this.

The is no justification at all for the government to escalate this issue to this point. NONE.

So what you think because Mr. Bundy is wrong that the government should just go in there and start shooting? They showed up with guns first man. Not the other way around.

reply to post by projectvxn


Honestly, i thought this was like that cult thing, where the cops burst in with gun fire and such.

Seems not only over the top for pretty much any situation, from what i gather the ranch has paperwork issues with its land and such.

Hardly time to call in the troops me thinks. However, the militias showing up were probably the main trigger for the amount of force used.

reply to post by projectvxn


How do we know this really... are we taking the word of a man who is breaking the law...?

I don't know who escalated what first! But i'm not sure I can trust this man Bundy with the truth.

nugget1

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

Second Amendment 'Rights' are a joke when compared to the capabilities the government has, and WILL USE on ANY American that thinks he has the right to exercise the Second Amendment.

If Afghan farmers and the Viet Cong are anything to go by, i am sure that US militias may have a chance against the US Government...

With that said, i don't condone any acts of violence...just pointing out the obvious...

reply to post by DJW001

How does the officer in charge of the operation know what the capacities of the objective are? There are militias in this country that are as well equipped as the Taliban.

Let's not start making comparisons to the Taliban shall we? Those are Americans down there not terrorists.

Secondly the militia members that are showing up did not show up with shoulder fired rockets, grenades, or machine guns.

All I have seen so far are handguns and rifles.

Secondly, why are we making excuses for the continued heavy handed MILITARY response to this cattle rancher's home?

It was the BLM who showed up with snipers and it was the police in the area that started abusing protesters.

Now they are setting up a ROZ and cutting off cell service. Why?

From my understanding, there is no confirmation of communication systems being disrupted in the area. We had a report by a small time news network which couldn't even be bothered to properly follow up the story...

I say we need more evidence to sufficiently conclude that the communications systems are down, and what caused their fault.

projectvxn
3. You do NOT set up a ROZ and cut off comms like this.

I am entertaining your thread, and it's good, raises good points- but, reading around more, I think the comms cut issue might be false. They attribute problems with communications as normal, due to the location. At least, that's what I am hearing from the Bundy family. So all I am saying is you might wait a bit for more info on that. Still, even without that, it does smell of execute operation coming, like you say.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by projectvxn

 

How do we know this really... are we taking the word of a man who is breaking the law...?

I don't know who escalated what first! But i'm not sure I can trust this man Bundy with the truth.

We know this from the various reports leading up to the BLM showing up with snipers on overwatch to execute the cattle round up.

All this man is doing illegally is a trespassing cattle drive. Not only that the man is claiming ancestral rights. He's not exactly a career criminal dude.

Let try to get some perspective shall we?