The status and validity of "Blue" as an identity in a controversial debate

"Edwin: Blue Lives Matter too, you know. Police officers put themselves at risk all the time to protect the public; a lot of them are traumatised, injured or even killed on the line of duty."

The problem I see here is that BLM is already a "too". By inference that means that some police are already considered in the default position. In the case of black police officers we can cite examples where they are not given the respect afforded their white counterparts, and indeed in some examples are victimised and lied about.

Take the recent example in St. Louis of an undercover police officer being the victim of some cops who set out with the purpose of beating up peaceful blacks who were protesting the acquittal of an officer who shot dead a black man. In this case when they told their standard lies that he was resisting arrest for bogus charges it made no sense at all as an undercover officer doesn't want to draw undue attention and would comply; perhaps a token mouthing off or minor struggle but nothing to warrant the beating he received. Once his identity was revealed, rather than admit that they messed up, the rogue officers doubled down and concocted a fictional account. 

So this blue LM thing is a poorly thought out and ignorant response and/or is a smokescreen to distract from the actual issues. 

Is there a fallacy as such? It doesn't seem to be couched as a counterargument, as the word "too" would imply agreement with BLM, perhaps you could say that it's a red herring also, as it's irrelevant nonsense. 

"Yusra: "Blue" isn't an identity in the way that "black" is, because being black is immutable and being a police offer is not. Police officers choose their careers. They choose to work in certain areas. They know the risks that they expose themselves to. Black people do not choose their race, or where they grow up, and they certainly can't stop being black. Therefore, Blue Lives Matter is not analogous to Black Lives Matter. It is not relevant."

Blue not being an identity doesn't mean that it's not a valid point, however it's rendered moot for the reasons I gave above. 

The part about police choosing a dangerous career, and blacks not choosing to be underprivileged and victimised is a reasonable distinction in terms of showing that it's not analogous, however the original argument didn't include anything about an analogy; this is a straw man and, yes, a red herring. 

Edwin is directly comparing cops and their struggles to black people and their struggles. His argument is also a response to Black Lives Matter, which means it should be relevant to the points the movement makes. His premise isn't that cops are a social identity, it's that they're like black people via the 'Blue Lives Matter too' phrase, which equates cops to black people. This in turn equates the struggles he mentioned cops having to the racism and persecution black people face.

Yusura responds by pointing out that the comparison isn't valid because cops aren't a racial identity, they chose to be cops and can choose to quit while black people didn't choose to be black and can't stop being black or to be subjected to the issues they face for being black. Her response that Blue Lives Matter isn't analogous to Black Lives Matter and that Edwin's argument isn't relevant to what he's responding to is valid and addresses his point.

In short, Edwin's argument is fallacious, Yusura's isn't. The example isn't actually about cops as a social identity, it's about the validity of comparing cops to black people in response to the Black Lives Matter movement.

"Blue Lives Matter" is a Red Herring and a racist dog whistle. It's a very deliberate attempt to derail discussion about the police brutality, shootings and basically any criticism of police. The whole idea of equating cops to a racial identity is to mimic social movements to further obscure and derail the real issue. Their flag is effectively a fascist symbol white supremacists use and the American police is documented as having an alarming number of white supremacists in it.

As an identity, it's essentially coding for white supremacists who are cops to signal to other white supremacists their views in a covert manner rather than cops as a whole, though again, there's a lot of racism and white supremacy in the police force.

I think a lot of the confusion around the Black Lives Matter issue is that the slogan is also a claim. I think its meant to be more of a slogan for a movement, rather than an actual claim. So there is a kind of equivocation fallacy going on here when people say, "all lives matter, white lives matter, blue lives matter" and so on. Its taking the slogan literally, when its not meant to be taken literally but rather metaphorically to represent a deeper systemic problem with our current policing system and culture. 

I don't know what Edwin is specifically responding to, so it would be unfair to evaluate his response. It does appear that Yusra is committing a Strawman Fallacy , but to know for sure I would want to see what Edwin was responding to.