This movement was created with these intentions. I feel it is only fair to clarify these points to Stephen A. Smith before criticizing him. Because when someone creates a movement with an intended purpose and agenda, it needs to be stated what that agenda and purpose is. This movement was not created to bring awareness to Black-on-Black crime. It was not intended to highlight violence amongst our youth. It was created to remind police officers that kill Black people and get away with it, that…Black Lives Matter.
This movement would probably point fingers at the Black folks who murder their own brothers and sisters; if those people were acquitted of the crimes they commit. But as it currently stands, the prison corporate systems house more Black people than any other race. When Black people commit crimes against their own people and other races they are usually punished. They are usually persecuted to the full extent of the law. There is rarely any leniency in regard to their punishment.
On the other hand, with the exception of the Baltimore case, the police officers go unpunished. No one is serving time in the Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner cases. I’m quite sure if these were Black on Black crimes and the culprit was caught, he would be in jail.
When someone like Stephen A. Smith compares the two scenarios, it dilutes the purpose and agenda of the movement. It rationalizes and indicates that the acquittal of the crooked police officers is justified because Black people don’t care about their own lives; so why should we? This is trickery and word manipulation being done by Mr. Smith. I say that because I think Mr. Smith knows the difference between the two. However I think him and other prominent Black men in the media are intentionally blurring the lines. Charles Barkley did something similar by making comments that sided with the police officers who killed Eric Garner.