The case for BLM is a statistical one. Police kill people of all different races, so they are also killing white people and plenty of people from other minority groups. The difference is in the numbers of people, in relative not absolute terms. In other words, the police kill more whites than black, but they kill more blacks in relation to the size of these populations. Most people don't think of it that way, of course. White victims of the police don't matter, because they don't fit the narrative. Presumably the lower number of white victims is a matter of "privilege." The police still might shoot you, but not as often.
Yet the consciousness of it centers around a very few exemplary victims whose names happen to be known to the general public. This is a recipe for confusion. For example, Derek Chauvin might be convicted (or acquitted) of killing George Floyd. Seen from the exemplary perspective, this is going to be extremely meaningful in its impact, because that was the case that came to the attention of the public because of the length of time Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck. It is horrible to watch and has had a powerful impact on everyone who has seen it. Yet others have died, and we haven't seen their videos. The real drama is in the statistics, not in any individual case.
I'm watching the trial, and it seems the prosecution's strategy is to bore the jury to death.