The two issues (police violence targeting the black community and internal violence in the black community) are closely coupled, though. Broadly speaking, communities that don't have reliable and safe access to state-empowered law enforcement (say, if there's a threat or history of law enforcement applying violence unjustly or indiscriminately or simply an absence of law enforcement) will turn to resolving disputes internally, and that "resolution" tends to be more brutal than what is applied by a modern police force. Historical examples include the US old west, Scottish highlands and many versions of organized crime (notably the Sicilian and NYC mafias and the Central American cartels).

When the news media, being (for better or worse) a driver of public opinion and thus electoral policy especially at the local level, ignores both issues (as they have a long-standing habit of doing) while playing up (or even fabricating) reports of black-on-white violence, it exacerbates both issues as well as strengthening the feedback loop between them by driving support in the broader community for more hard-line policing.

The primary thing that seems to change news media is a change in ownership

Alot of public opinion on things can shift as local news media is bought away from various families

The fact that police often threaten underpolicing of black communities in response to protests goes a long way to explaining why cops killing black people and people who aren’t cops killing black people are related. I wouldn’t say the movement is ignorant of this connection at all, it’s a big part of the argument. To oversimplify, black communities are faced with a Hobson’s choice of violence at the hands of police or violence at the hands of criminals. White communities for the most part can trust that the police will fight crime in their communities without subjecting them to violence in the course of it.

Holding police accountable for unreasonable killings is not being anti-police.

And if that's all BLM did, far fewer people would have any issue with them. But you're simply ignoring reality if you really think that they limit themselves to unreasonable killings.

Like any and every popular movement, there will people that attach themselves to it to serve their own agenda, sometimes fully self serving, sometimes because they see a platform to advance something they see as extremely important for society, even if many other people disagree on the fundamentals or just the methodology. While missteps of the BLM movement deserve to be called out and criticized, it's also important to remember that great many people are more interested with the original core tenets of the movement and so it's not accurate to paint them all because of the actions of a few.

The same goes for the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm sure everyone here could point to bad actions that people have taken in the name of those groups and/or organizations, but that doesn't mean we should assume those negative instances represent the wishes of all the others in that group, or apply the criticism across the entire group when it doesn't reflect a majority of their views.

And before people come back with their perceptions of how much of a group believes in and supports the actions of some, it's worth considering that opposition groups will always latch onto the problem people and subgroups and play them up as larger than they are, so the media will almost always either misrepresent them as a larger or smaller portion of that group than they actually are.

Yeah like that person who lit a cop car in Seattle on fire! Oh, they were white? And from Texas? And didn't appear to believe that black lives mattered at all? The point I'm trying to get here is that you're arguing with what should be an unimpeachable central thesis "black lives matter". Also, you are kidding yourself. The US is still painfully racist. People were gonna get mad no matter what because it was about black people.

There's nutpicking and then there's having your movement taken over by nuts.

The public face of BLM at its peak, for better or worse, featured a large number of nuts. Like your bro in Seattle there. Or those CHAZ people, also Seattle, who actually killed 3 black guys in as many weeks as part of their black lives matter protest. In the mainstream, anyone who acknowledged black-on-black crime or said that rioting might be a bad PR look was called a fifth column or concern troll.

Mob mentality is a thing, I'm not perfect either but a lot of people got carried away.

The point I was making is that my "bro" wasn't part of BLM, but was merrily lumped in by media services that were actively lying during the protests in Seattle.

And yeah, the people who said that about protesting were concern trolls. There was a lot of police on protestor violence, and there was an honestly alarming amount of lies spread in news during that time. I'm talking about misreporting of events I was present for, or was actively watching live feeds of.

He was at a BLM protest and lit up that cop car. I checked, his quote was "I got carried away".

No comment on CHAZ killing 3 black dudes? Is that a pro or anti 'black lives matter' action?

You can define your personal boundary for who "counts" and not, have it include all the peaceful people and none of the bad/unwise people, and call everyone who disagrees a concern troll.. and hey, you'll be right, according to you.

Nope, no comment because I don't know what you're talking about. I spent some time reflecting on this little interaction and it really reminded me of when it was going on. I got a call from my grandmother to watch out because she had heard about some really ugly things and these Seattle riots, and was I staying safe? And it was bizarre, because the places she was describing were places I had been, and I had zero evidence for anything she described. It was like she was living in a reality where I was under siege while I was going to the protests that she was convinced were violent riots. Because that's how they were being reported.

Which brings me to talking to you. You've got this world view I can't validate but I suspect was informed by broadcasts that at the time I materially disagreed with, due to them being materially incorrect. You're characterizing the activity as a riot and talking about CHAZ like you know what it was like, but you don't. If you did you'd probably mention the fucking stupid garden people put in that immediately stopped being maintained, or the teargas fired at peaceful protesters, or the mayor promising that wouldn't happen anymore and that promise being broken less than twelve hours later, or that a big part of what was going on was that Seattle was trying to remove federal oversight in the form of the consent decree - Seattle has a pretty ugly history with its police, and a consent decree is a no fault agreement to oversight. Oh or the person who tried being a vigilante peace-keeper, how that didn't go over well, and ended in tears and hugs or any of the other bizarre events.

And that person - they weren't involved with BLM, thats the point. They came in from out of state and took advantage of some chaos. They were not ideologically involved. This is not a BLM equivalent of right-wing terror attacks. The rhetoric in the streets was to be on the lookout for agent provocateurs trying to stir this into violence, that anyone being violent or destructive was actively working against any kind of social reform or change.

You could just Google 'chaz shooting'.

It sounds like you see this as a tribal issue. Where it's your tribe vs the other tribe and saying something like "it got out of hand at times" would be conceding ground.

Consider the current moment where critical race theory has now been weaponized back against liberals and used to delegitimize legitimate points and problems we have. Maybe this could have been avoided if the movement had told Robin DiAngelo to shut up and stop giving them ammo. Instead they tried to 'cancel' anyone who saw this coming a year out, like Lee Fang or David Shor.

You happy with the results? Was it worth it? Where are the wins?

“reasonable” and “justified” are arbitrary standards created randomly across every jurisdiction

getting the “perfect case” is not really possible when the “rulings” simply match your pre existing appeal to authority or not

people are therefore pushing as many cases as possible into the national spotlight to make it more obvious that uniform accountability standards republic-wide are necessary. if you feel some other killings need more attention then do that

Can you explain that criticism? Why, to them, is that related?

I've seen it before, and I've seen talk show pundits that they watch say it, but whatever is clicking in their head is not clicking in mine.

I am not exactly understanding the train of thought which is being used to invalidate calls for police accountability. I am not seeing it related at all.

I guess a stretch would be "black lives don't matter to them so why are they trying to convince us", or maybe its not a stretch to the people that would think that, but its also hard for me to relate to because I don't really get the segregation mentality, it seems dated

Majority of murders are among people of same race and demographic. People kill those that are nearby and those they know.

So you have white on white killings too, despite that term being literally never used. Majority of murders are male on male killing, males both being same race. Then you have domestic murders and those are also people living close to each other.

Black on black murders don't get little attention. They are the kind of murder mentioned fairly often, most often when someone argue that cop violence is not issue.