It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BLM Sides with sides with ‘LaVoy’ Finicum allies against Oregon bill (Black Lives Matter)

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Washington Post article, Feb 17, 2016




Supporters of the Bundy-led Oregon occupiers have gained an unexpected ally in their fight against a bill that would shield the identity of the officer who shot and killed Robert “LaVoy” Finicum: the Black Lives Matter movement.

Black Lives Matter Portland urged its followers on social media to oppose House Bill 4087, the Democrat-sponsored measure introduced last week in response to threats against the Oregon State Police officer, whose name has yet to be released pending an investigation.


I am very interested to see opinions regarding these two often very disparate seeming political groups combining their efforts in Oregon.

The argument from BLM goes to police accountability in the face of killings or use of deadly force.

Apparently, from other material read on the subject, the Oregon State Police have had multiple death threats made against officers in recent weeks.

What say you ATS? Will BLM help to highlight the Bundy Gang's issues with ... er ... BLM?




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

We really win when the Bureau of Land Management, and in fact enough of the other "agencies" also side with people, as their job description obliges them to.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Strikes me as nothing more than convenient bedfellows. BLM doesn't want bills like this passed anywhere, regardless of who was killed by law enforcement. I sincerely doubt they'll be doing anything to champion the Bundy issues beyond fighting this bill.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

It's black lives matter, not land management.

As was quoted in the OP.




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Gryphon66

We really win when the Bureau of Land Management, and in fact enough of the other "agencies" also side with people, as their job description obliges them to.


I would say that's absolutely true when those agencies side with The People, not just some people who want their own way rather than obey our laws.

PS: Shamrock is absolutely correct.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Strikes me as nothing more than convenient bedfellows. BLM doesn't want bills like this passed anywhere, regardless of who was killed by law enforcement. I sincerely doubt they'll be doing anything to champion the Bundy issues beyond fighting this bill.


Indeed. But wouldn't it be interesting if BLM (Black Lives Matter) actually decided that their cause (prevention of government overreach and supposedly unwarranted killings) actually aligned with the Bundys?

I mean, technically with a change in venue and a few philosophical modifications ... they do seem to have some common concerns.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Our laws including the constitution, or our laws including the NDAA, Patriot surveillance invading war type law?

Cause they're not compatible



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Gryphon66

Our laws including the constitution, or our laws including the NDAA, Patriot surveillance invading war type law?

Cause they're not compatible


Honestly, I'm not sure I follow you.

How does this have to do with BLM joining forces with the Bundy Gang and associated followers?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
And while I'm at it, those government employed type bums are a little bit too much of a socialist day care program gone wrong. Gun control should apply to them.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




How does this have to do with BLM joining forces with the Bundy Gang and associated followers?


Well why do they join forces?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Well if BLM gives any support in common with a "Bundy" style protest, I imagine the "Bundy" movements will get more popular with many who opposed them in the past even though both have much in common.

Now the "Government" police state has even more to worry about !!!!




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, it seems that Black lives Matter is focusing on the death of Finicum and associated law enforcement accountability - and in this regard it appears we (Black lives matter and myself) agree.

But that's where it stops for me - I look at this situation having similarities to the white supremacists coming out in support of Trump.

I can see a situation developing where media outlets are going to get confused about this acronym too...


edit on 17-2-2016 by Sublimecraft because: clarification



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
And while I'm at it, those government employed type bums are a little bit too much of a socialist day care program gone wrong. Gun control should apply to them.


Ah. Okay.

Topic: Black Lives Matter is supporting opposition to a law in Oregon that is also being supported by pro-Finicum/pro-Bundy Gang types.

What do you think of that?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Indeed.
Although ... don't you wonder just a bit if Fox might have been making an intentional foo-paws there? LOL

I want to be clear, I am not stating agreement with Black Lives Matter in their Oregon protest ... I'm just interested to see how this fits in with the standard arguments about what the Bundys are trying to do as compared with what Black Lives Matter is trying to do.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Of that I think the laws men make and enforce with death penalty without a jury, such as in the case of the man you mention in the title thread, are less than perfect.
I think the Constitution is enough law.
In fact think one law per finger is enough.
So to answer your question I'm glad that there is opposition to new laws. Guidelines are enough mostly.

And I'm glad that the official story reports cooperation among Americans not employed by the government, who are my favourite Americans



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Alright.

Thanks for adding to the thread.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

For now, I'm going to give a qualified but optimistic -- very optimistic -- Woohoo!!!

I think this could be amazing. Both do have common issues. It's an opportunity for seemingly opposite factions to both learn from and teach each other. It could do wonders for the so-called racial divide. It could bridge the political polarization. It would throw a big fat wrench into the divide-and-conquer game. It could create strength through numbers. It could inspire a thoughtful and reasonable solution that works for everyone.

I am hopeful. Very very hopeful.

Woohoo!!!



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
The enemy of my enemy is my friend....this is bound to increase as the people realize the FED is not friendly to anyone but corporations and rich elites...



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Bill passed, 55-3.

Link to Oregonian article







 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join