This makes no sense whatsoever. So a movement or organization that are advocating for improvement on the lives of orphans are saying that orphans are the only ones standing up for? An organization or movement advocating for better treatment of wildlife and animals are saying that animals and wildlife are the only ones standing up for? A movement or organization advocating for better treatment of the homeless are saying that the homeless are the ones worth standing up for?
Just because the Black Lives Matter movement was created as a response to the way black people were wrongfully killed and the killers were not appropriately punished does not mean that they are saying that this is the only issue that matters. You also make it sound like advocates of this response to this particular social issue aren't or can't be advocates for responses to other social issues. If you want there to be a response and movement for Hispanics who are killed unjustly that's as vocal as Black Lives Matter, don't belittle the movements that already exist and go "If you care about this, then obviously you don't care about this", start being vocal about it. Create a movement, start the conversation. And if you wanna do it right, don't name it something like Hispanic Lives Matter, cuz then you're making it look like you're competing or challenging Black Lives Matter, which you should know isn't the way to go.
Anyways, in short, you have an outlook on this that is completely wrong. Advocating for Black Lives Matter DOES NOT mean you are saying that black people are the only ones worth standing up for. That's like saying someone who said "John is tall" is saying John is the only tall person.
I'm not here to argue with you over it but they're not exactly the same thing, for starters those hypothetical movements/organizations are still advocating on behalf of all participants in the groups not specific sects. Secondly they're outside benefactors aiding others while these riots are a group representing themselves.
There's nothing else on the planet like humans, animals don't have riots against other animals, so there's not really a great comparison but it's similar to if elephants started protesting poachers with signs that say "Elephant lives matter". Well what about all the other poor animals that are being killed by poachers, "**** 'em" is essentially the attitude being portrayed by the elephants.
Lastly, this issue is supposed to be about police brutality as a whole, not focusing on police brutality against African Americans. These showings are demonstrating an implied concern only when someone of their own group is abused. There are few riots or demands of justice when any other person is assaulted by the police but when it is a black person the community unites and demands justice. Why are there no riots for the Mexicans beaten in the south west?
You must be registered for see links
This man had given up and laid down and was still beaten, yet there's no outcry from the black community of police brutality there. You may go with the argument that it's because he wasn't killed in the assault but that's not the point and if that's the justification it's very weak and kind of pathetic. Notice a big difference here too, this man did not flee or resist police like Gray and Brown did.
I said it once I'll say it again, Gray and Brown deserved to be apprehended, it's an absolute shame they lost their life in the process but the police were 100% right for trying to detain them. They tried to escape which escalated the situation, obviously the police shouldn't have killed either men, but I find it hard to believe, as everyone is trying to make it seem, that those cops went out that day just looking to kill a black man. The whole situation was reactionary yet people are talking about it like it's premeditated. Now Eric Garner on the other hand never should have been apprehended and yet we have no riots for a truly inexcusable civilian murder.
