We've been referencing protester/activist groups over the last couple pages, with BLM standing for Black Lives Matter in that context.

The BLM referenced early in the thread was in regards to Cliven Bundy's protest and stand-off against the Bureau of Land Management, to whom he refused to pay grazing fees.

Perhaps these yokels should speak with the leaders of AIM or any local native tribe to see how occupying land and demanding it be returned to your people generally works out.

(01-05-2016, 08:20 AM)Donovan Wrote: Perhaps these yokels should speak with the leaders of AIM or any local native tribe to see how occupying land and demanding it be returned to your people generally works out.

If the local native tribe was occupying a government building and issuing demands and threats against law enforcement, I suspect that law enforcement wouldn't be exercising the same patient and calm strategy. I think Adub and Duchess are probably right about that, unfortunately.

If armed BLM (Black Lives Matter) activists occupied a remote and otherwise empty government building and threatened law enforcement if their demands for criminal justice reform weren't met, I suspect even more strongly that those activists would be removed by force quickly.

In the case of these self-proclaimed "patriots", however, I think law enforcement will just wait them out, like they did with patriarch Cliven Bundy and his posse. The Fed doesn't want the backlash that came with Ruby Ridge and Waco, even though the cases are very different. Unlike Ruby Ridge and Waco, the Bundy gang have invaded a community, broken laws proudly and openly, and threatened to kill law enforcement officers who try to remove them from the illegally-occupied property.

I don't believe the government will give the occupiers the acres of land they demand, but I could see this one ending in another slap on the wrist for the criminal Bundys and company, followed by more such crimes being committed by emboldened like-minded gangs.

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.

It appears the court of public opinion is firmly against these idiots and they are basically being roundly mocked all over the place. And the FBI seems to be closing the net around them. No food for a long seige, no power, no access to roads...only a matter of time really before this little ridiculous show collapses on itself.

Black Lives Matter wishes they thought to take over a building. Every time they broke in some place, people stole stuff and then they all had to run.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) never advocated or organized people to break in and steal things, Cutz.

Obviously, not all black people are BLM activists. Some black people aren't vested in affecting change and just go about their business, same as it ever was. Other black people are self-serving criminals who have no regard for the property and lives of others, black or otherwise. The latter type broke off from peaceful protests and broke and stole things.

Many of the residents of Burns protested peacefully against the appellate sentence handed down to the Hammonds. They declined to join the Bundy brothers in breaking off from the legal protest, illegally occupying property, and challenging law enforcement to an armed confrontation. Lumping the disgruntled but lawful white ranchers/protesters in with the Bundys' gang would be the same as lumping the looters/rioters in with Black Lives Matters activists.

(01-05-2016, 12:43 AM)Love Child Wrote: BLM: Bureau of Land Management or
Black Lives Matter?!??!

Now I have to re-read this thread.

Also, did the Bundys really call for snacks/care packages to be sent to them? I think it is a rumor I saw on twitter.

Too funny. It seems that Ammon Bundy has a lot of twitter folks trying to be him with fake accounts. It has been good for a days laugh. Bundy's account has been suspended. Gawd twitter is so amusing. I love the political nerd guy. He gives me moments of sanity.

(01-05-2016, 10:07 PM)Cutz Wrote: Black Lives Matter wishes they thought to take over a building. Every time they broke in some place, people stole stuff and then they all had to run.

No fucking way. They did try occupying some gov't building. Where? escapes me at the moment. But it was all fucking bad. Maybe it was a church. No wait. The church is where BLM stored their snacks. Law Enforcement broke into the church and stole all BLMs snacks. That's the story.

(01-05-2016, 11:05 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Black Lives Matter (BLM) never advocated or organized people to break in and steal things, Cutz.

Obviously, not all black people are BLM activists. Some black people aren't vested in affecting change and just go about their business, same as it ever was. Other black people are self-serving criminals who have no regard for the property and lives of others, black or otherwise. The latter type broke off from peaceful protests and broke and stole things.

Many of the residents of Burns protested peacefully against the appellate sentence handed down to the Hammonds. They declined to join the Bundy brothers in breaking off from the legal protest, illegally occupying property, and challenging law enforcement to an armed confrontation. Lumping the disgruntled but lawful white ranchers/protesters in with the Bundys' gang would be the same as lumping the looters/rioters in with Black Lives Matters activists.

You got me on that one.

Same as it ever was.

Almost feel like I should apologize and ask for divine forgiveness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98AJUj-qxHI

I have no problem lumping protesters, peaceful or otherwise, in the same category. Regardless of race.

It's not racist for LE response to be different in this case. "What if they were all black people?" There was a group like that... they were called the Black Panthers. They disrupted a government session by armed force. About 30 people, 6 were arrested. Were they all gunned down? No. Was the group labeled thugs? Not historically. Did stupid people use Twitter to share every asinine thought they wanted to leak out of their stupid brains? (To be fair, it wasn't created yet.)

I think occupying a gov't building by force to try to advertise your cause is stupid. It makes people hate you and hurts whatever mission you have. Then you get arrested (best case scenario.) Goal orientation and critical thinking are beyond many people I guess. I think forming a militia in the first place is punching your ticket to disregarded-ville. But if it were a black militia, in today's society, LE would leave the state. Game over man, they own it now. I don't think middle eastern people are dumb enough to form a militia.

Well said Cutz.

(01-06-2016, 01:01 AM)Cutz Wrote: I have no problem lumping protesters, peaceful or otherwise, in the same category. Regardless of race.

It's not racist for LE response to be different in this case. "What if they were all black people?" There was a group like that... they were called the Black Panthers. They disrupted a government session by armed force. About 30 people, 6 were arrested. Were they all gunned down? No. Was the group labeled thugs? Not historically. Did stupid people use Twitter to share every asinine thought they wanted to leak out of their stupid brains? (To be fair, it wasn't created yet.)

I think occupying a gov't building by force to try to advertise your cause is stupid. It makes people hate you and hurts whatever mission you have. Then you get arrested (best case scenario.) Goal orientation and critical thinking are beyond many people I guess. I think forming a militia in the first place is punching your ticket to disregarded-ville. But if it were a black militia, in today's society, LE would leave the state. Game over man, they own it now. I don't think middle eastern people are dumb enough to form a militia.

I didn't say it was racist for LE response to be different in this case. They aren't comparable cases/responses because the strategies of the activists are different.

You might be right about how LE would handle black occupiers in today's climate. I hope we don't have to find out.

I don't share your view that people who protest peacefully are to be lumped in with people who commit criminal acts to forward their protest agenda. I don't have a problem with you lumping them all into the same category, but I would have a problem if I ever found myself adopting that viewpoint.

People who peacefully exercise their first amendment rights are not committing crimes in so doing. If a subset of them, or people from the same demographic but unassociated with the protesters, illegally occupy buildings, start fires, steal...those people are obviously criminals, not the peaceful protesters. Just like people who exercise their second amendment rights to bear arms are not criminals in so doing, but the subset who goes out and shoots/kills others offensively are obviously criminals. To lump them all together makes no sense to me.

And, I agree with you about the stupidity of occupying a building. I think it's even stupider to attempt to force an armed conflict with law enforcement.

(01-06-2016, 01:01 AM)Cutz Wrote: It's not racist for LE response to be different in this case. "What if they were all black people?" There was a group like that... they were called the Black Panthers. They disrupted a government session by armed force. About 30 people, 6 were arrested. Were they all gunned down? No. Was the group labeled thugs? Not historically.

Okay, you got me curious and I had to check this out Cutz.

It happened here in California in 1967. The Black Panthers interrupted the session in the state capitol which was considering repealing Open Carry in the state. They did not threaten anyone, but called attention to their cause and surrendered peacefully. The group pleaded guilty to the one law they broke: a misdemeanor charge of disrupting a legislative session. In no way were they provoking a stand off with their gun rights demonstration. This is what put the Black Panthers on the map.

In 1985, the black activist MOVE group did in fact provoke a stand off with law enforcement when they refused to vacate a portion of a building they'd been occupying. When tear gas was used and shots were fired, the Philadelphia police commissioner ordered the building to be bombed. 11 people, including 5 children, were killed. The fire department was ordered not to quash the flames. 250 people were rendered homeless as the entire block was destroyed. No one faced criminal charges, but the city had to pay civil damages.

When the American Indian Movement occupied the town of Wounded Knee, SD in 1973, demanding that the federal government honor their treaties and grant the Indians greater control over their native lands, the police, military, and FBI turned the reservation into an all-out war zone and snipers shot dead two AIM members. A U.S. Marshal was shot and paralyzed.

Then there was the Waco siege in 1993 with more than 75 dead.

Anyway, I hope that times have changed enough that any race of protesters or bystanders would not be killed over an occupation, and LE would instead be able to use non-lethal means and charge the occupiers later (as long as they weren't endangering the lives of others). Donovan is right about history pointing away from a death-free forced evacuation. I hope the Bundy militia folds before we have to find out if that holds true in present day Oregon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident

I firmly believe had those men been black and threatened the authorities that LEO never would have stood for that. They would have taken some kind of action and not cared a wit about any black lives lost.

It's cold out there at that outpost so maybe nobody wants to even mess around. I bet if it was summer the place would be crawling with feds.

One of the AIM guys is still in prison for what happened in the 70's, Leonard Peltier. They locked that dude up and threw away the key and there is some question whether or not he even did the crime (murder of two FBI).

(01-06-2016, 06:47 AM)Duchess Wrote:
I firmly believe had those men been black and threatened the authorities that LEO never would have stood for that. They would have taken some kind of action and not cared a wit about any black lives lost.

You might be right.

But, I think Cutz makes a good point. The same LEOs might not differentiate between how they treat criminal protesters of different races under the same circumstances today.

I don't know. I think black activists may have been effective enough in recent years to make LEOs stop and think before they took unnecessary lethal action, either because LEOs care more about black lives now, or because LEOs just know they wouldn't get away with caring less.

I doubt that LEOs would let a black community burn in flames today, just to evict a few criminal protesters, like they did in Philly back in the 80s.

There's a lot of negative associated with activism/protests, media, social media and such...........I think there are also some very positive impacts that are often overlooked.

(01-06-2016, 09:37 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: You might be right.

You know I sometimes just blurt out things but I often think that blacks, browns and reds don't get the same consideration that white people do. Many people seem to jump to conclusions where they are concerned, I am guilty of it myself.

I'm surrounded by a sea of brown, the first thing they they did on American soil was commit a crime. They give preferential treatment to each other, don't need to speak on word of English all day long and don't give a rats ass about America. You need to get out of your neighborhood more often.