If this was the only time BLM did something like this you'd have a point. But it happens a lot. The argument that "it's a big organization with sh**tty or nonexistent leadership with a bunch of random loud moths regularly embarrassing them but the general purpose and overall goals of the group is a net good for society" is a much better angle than the one you seem to be taking.
I just don't see why anyone would make a big deal out of this except to discredit the broader message of BLM.
Because BLM is making a big deal out of it. See thread title.
I'm sure it happens some times. However, it's not a socially important issue and focusing on this kind of cases over those BLM rightfully denounces reflects seriously screwed up priorities.
So whenever an example proves you right it's a very important issue but whenever there's a counterexample it's "not a socially important issue"?
They're all under the same umbrella. The issue is "racist cops shoot innocent unarmed black people", or as Kendrick Lamar put it, "every time you clock in the morning I feel you just want to kill." Is it true? The counterargument is that in many or most of these situations, there were extenuating circumstances where the cop felt that he had no other option but to use deadly force, leaving not a national epidemic but a few isolated cases, like Baton Rouge, where everyone agrees the officers committed murder. Every time there's a case like this where BLM is angry angry angry that a man was shot but it's clear from the evidence that the officer felt he had no other choice, that contributes to the counterargument.
