Of course they don’t. Anyone committing violence is, by definition, not an official member. And a member who advocates for violence is not speaking on behalf of BLM. But I don’t think “In Defense of Looting” is a plea for pacifism.
The rhetorical distinction between a BLM “supporter” and a BLM “Official member” is irrelevant to people who are the victims of looting or physical violence.
But we are really just talking about a rhetorical trick. Making a public statement that your organization does not officially condone violence does not actually exempt you from moral responsibility when your events turn into orgies of mob violence. Which seems to happen more and more frequently. When “Black Lives Matter protest turns violent” is a common headline, it is pretty delusional to pretend that all the violence has nothing at all to do with BLM.
I will admit that many people likely do take their nonviolence and support for BLM seriously. Others do not.
